Patrick Eugene Carr

This case involves a dispute in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding over entitlement to a brokerage commission from the sale of two radio stations owned by debtor Inter Urban Broadcasting. Appellant Schütz claimed the commission based on a 1989 pre-petition agreement under which he introduced buyer Noble, while appellee Blackburn sought the fee after being authorized to negotiate and complete the sale under the confirmed reorganization plan. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's rulings granting Blackburn's nunc pro tunc appointment as broker, approving its fee as an administrative expense, and denying Schütz any commission. The court reasoned that professional brokers require court approval under 11 U.S.C. §§ 327 and 330, Schütz's pre-petition contract produced no benefit to the estate and was not approved post-petition, and the bankruptcy court's factual findings on Blackburn's disinterestedness, good faith, and excusable neglect were not clearly erroneous.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the St. Tammany Parish School Board's decision to remove the book Voodoo & Hoodoo from all school libraries after a parent objected to its descriptions of voodoo practices, which she believed could encourage dangerous behavior among students. The plaintiffs sued, claiming the removal violated the First Amendment's free speech and establishment clauses, as well as parallel Louisiana constitutional provisions. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. It reasoned that under Board of Education v. Pico, the board's action was impermissibly motivated by disagreement with the book's content and religious objections, as shown by statements from board members and committee participants invoking religious views rather than legitimate educational concerns.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

The case involved a dispute between Durham and Vanguard Bank over a mortgage on a New Orleans property, a related settlement agreement that included a quitclaim deed (dation en paiement), and alleged oral assurances by the bank extending the redemption deadline. Durham sued for breach of contract, fraud, and related claims after the bank recorded the deed without notice when a sale was pending. Vanguard moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that Louisiana's credit agreement statute (La. Rev. Stat. § 6:1121 et seq.) barred enforcement of any oral modifications because they were not in writing. The court denied the motion, holding that Vanguard, as a foreign bank, did not qualify as a financial institution authorized to transact business in the state under the statute and thus could not invoke its protections.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved the United States suing dentist Dr. Drew Morvant under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act for allegedly refusing dental treatment to two HIV-positive individuals and engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against others with HIV. The defendant moved to dismiss the claims against him personally because he operated through a professional dental corporation and moved to strike demands for monetary damages for a deceased patient and unidentified aggrieved persons. The court denied both motions, holding that the ADA imposes liability on individuals who own or operate places of public accommodation and directly participate in discriminatory acts, that HIV is a covered disability, and that damages may be sought for pattern-or-practice violations even when some victims are initially unidentified or when survivorship statutes apply.

civil rightshealthcare

This case involves a maritime dispute under general average principles, where plaintiff Deutsche Shell sought contribution from defendant Placid Refining for expenses incurred in refloating its tanker DIALA after it grounded on the Mississippi River while carrying crude oil to Placid's refinery under a Crude Freight Service Arrangement. Placid raised defenses including laches, lack of cargo ownership at the time, and unseaworthiness of the vessel due to overloading and defective radar. The court rejected the first two defenses and found the vessel was not overloaded, but concluded there was no general average act because defective radar from Shell's poor maintenance rendered the DIALA unseaworthy and proximately caused the grounding. As a result, the court held Placid was not liable for any general average contribution.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), as conservator and receiver for a failed Louisiana savings and loan, asserting state-law negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against former officers and directors for approving certain loan transactions. The RTC moved to strike the defendants' affirmative defenses of prescription (statute of limitations) and laches, arguing they could not succeed under any facts. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, striking all laches defenses but declining to strike any prescription defenses. It reasoned that FIRREA's federal limitations provisions (12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)) made the claims timely as they were brought within three years of the conservator's appointment, but state-law prescription issues remained potentially viable depending on accrual dates and other factors. The decision was based on the specific timeline of appointments, resignations, and filings without resolving underlying factual disputes.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

Oreman Sales, Inc., a wholesale distributor of electronic equipment, sued its former supplier Panasonic for wrongfully terminating their non-exclusive distribution agreement covering several states, interfering with Oreman's business relations with others, and engaging in price discrimination among distributors. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Panasonic's motion to dismiss the complaint in full. The court reasoned that the written agreement was an at-will contract that expressly permitted termination without cause upon 30 days' notice, reserved Panasonic's unrestricted right to sell directly or appoint other distributors, and disclaimed any franchise relationship, while the complaint lacked required factual allegations to support claims of antitrust injury, relevant market effects, or other elements under the Robinson-Patman Act and related state-law theories.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved three newly formed corporations and a trust created by the Daigles, owners of Breaux & Daigle, Inc., seeking to enjoin IRS collection of Section 6672 penalties assessed against Alger and Roberta Daigle for unpaid employment taxes owed by their crabmeat processing business. After a prior judgment against Breaux & Daigle was affirmed on appeal, the Daigles transferred personal assets including vehicles, real property, and a houseboat to the new entities in exchange for stock, which was then placed in trust. The court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the action, holding that the transfers constituted fraudulent conveyances under Louisiana law and that the entities were alter egos of the taxpayers, allowing the IRS to reach the assets to satisfy the assessments. The decision rested on findings that the transactions lacked legitimate business purpose, occurred after notice of the tax liabilities, and were designed to shield property from collection.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case is a maritime personal injury suit in which a seaman injured in Texas sued his employer for unseaworthiness and Jones Act negligence, then added the vessel's London-based marine protection and indemnity underwriters as defendants under the Louisiana Direct Action Statute. The underwriters moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the policies were ocean marine insurance exempt from the statute and had not been written or delivered in Louisiana. The court granted summary judgment and now denies the plaintiff's motion for rehearing. It holds that two 1989 Louisiana Supreme Court decisions, Deshotels and Backhus, establish that marine P&I policies constitute ocean marine insurance and therefore fall outside the Direct Action Statute, implicitly overruling earlier Fifth Circuit precedent that had permitted such direct actions.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose after John Harrison, a seaman employed by Garber Bros., was struck and killed by a drunk driver while walking along a highway; his widow sued the employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law for unseaworthiness and negligence, alleging the employer should have provided transportation. Prior to trial she settled all claims against the driver for $10,000 and moved in limine to bar any evidence or argument concerning the driver’s negligence or any jury interrogatories on the driver’s proportionate fault. The district court denied the motion, holding that established Fifth Circuit precedent requires the factfinder to determine the relative degrees of fault among the plaintiff, the nonsettling defendant, and any settling tortfeasor—even one never named as a defendant—and to reduce any recovery accordingly. The court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on dictum from an earlier district-court opinion and found that subsequent Fifth Circuit decisions implicitly but necessarily treat named and unnamed settling parties alike for apportionment purposes.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute over whether an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan covers hyperbaric oxygen therapy for a participant who became quadriplegic after a spinal injury. The defendants denied coverage, classifying the therapy as experimental and investigative, thus not medically necessary under the plan. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the therapy was covered. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that under the policy language—whether the 1989 policy or the 1986 schedule—the treatment did not qualify as a covered medical expense because it was experimental and not reasonably necessary according to medical standards.

healthcare

This case involves a Title VII lawsuit by Patricia Lopez, a Black woman employed as a civilian military personnel technician by the Louisiana National Guard, alleging race discrimination and retaliation after her termination. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that Lopez failed to timely file her formal administrative complaint within the required 15-day period after her final EEO counseling interview on February 25, 1985. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Lopez's filings at the incorrect EEOC office did not satisfy the deadline for submission to an authorized LNG recipient, the incorrect address in the counseling notice did not prevent timely correction, and principles of equitable estoppel did not apply because she received notice of the error with sufficient time remaining to file properly. The decision rests on strict application of federal administrative exhaustion requirements for Title VII claims by federal employees without finding any basis for tolling or waiver.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns a motion for new trial in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit brought by plaintiffs against the United States over alleged negligence involving a hazardous condition in an apartment building (Apartment A-201 at Pine Terrace Apartments) that had been acquired by HUD after a loan default and later managed by FSLIC through third-party contractors. The court denied the motion and upheld its prior grant of summary judgment to the government. The core reasoning was that the FHA and HUD had not designed or constructed the building, that subsequent management and maintenance duties had been delegated to independent contractors (such as BJF) rather than government employees, and that the United States therefore could not be held liable for any negligence by those contractors under the FTCA's employee/independent-contractor distinction and related precedents.

torts & liabilityfederal power

The case concerns a challenge by mayoral candidate Donald Mintz to 1988 Louisiana campaign finance amendments that cap individual contributions at $5,000 and require full itemization of contributions for candidates, including the incumbent mayor of New Orleans. Mintz claimed the limits discriminate against challengers in violation of equal protection and restrict his speech by limiting funds available to spend. The court dismissed the federal constitutional claims on the merits, holding that the provisions are indistinguishable from contribution limits previously upheld in Buckley v. Valeo. It declined to exercise jurisdiction over the related state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

electionsfree speech

The case involved a Venezuelan seaman injured in New Orleans while reboarding his vessel after disembarking across a barge, leading to claims under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, general maritime negligence, and for maintenance, cure, and unpaid wages against the vessel owner and its insurer. The defendant insurer moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens and to apply foreign law under choice-of-law principles. The court first examined whether the wage claim under 46 U.S.C. § 10313 was asserted in good faith to establish mandatory jurisdiction, reviewing the plaintiff's testimony on deductions and unpaid amounts, and then applied the Lauritzen-Romero-Rhoditis factors to assess whether U.S. or foreign law governed the personal injury claims, distinguishing shipping cases from platform cases and citing precedents where foreign law applied based on the vessel's flag, plaintiff's domicile, and lack of a U.S. base of operations.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

This maritime property damage case under Rule 9(h) arose when the defendants' vessel, the M/V ROBERT N. STOUT, took on thirteen loosely rigged barges in the Chain of Rocks Canal and proceeded into the Mississippi River without fully securing the rigging. Eleven barges broke free in an unexpected current, striking and damaging two of the plaintiffs' mooring structures: a mooring cell at the ICG/Peabody facility and a mooring dolphin at the Pillsbury Sauget facility. The plaintiffs, including Pillsbury and related companies, sought recovery of replacement costs and incidental expenses. After a bench trial, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law on liability, damages, and prejudgment interest, applying federal maritime standards and determining the appropriate interest rate based on precedents and statutory provisions.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case arose from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Stalter & Co., which had leased office space from Loyola Associates and subleased it to the law firm Keaty & Keaty. After the bankruptcy court approved Stalter's rejection of both the master lease and sublease under 11 U.S.C. § 365, Keaty & Keaty moved to vacate that order and appealed the denial to the district court, arguing it had an independent right to remain in the premises. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling, holding that the Bankruptcy Code provides no such right to the sublessee and that any possessory claims are governed solely by Louisiana state law. The court also granted Loyola's motion for sanctions against Keaty & Keaty and its counsel, finding the appeal frivolous, and remanded for assessment of double costs and attorney's fees.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved the family of a 61-year-old river pilot who suffered a fatal heart attack shortly after boarding an oceangoing vessel via a pilot ladder and climbing stairs to the wheelhouse; the plaintiffs sued the vessel owner, charterer, and vessel, alleging that the use of a vertical pilot ladder instead of an angled accommodation ladder and the crew's failure to administer CPR or provide timely medical aid caused or contributed to the death. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs could not establish legal causation between the ladder's design and the heart attack, that the defendants owed no duty to provide CPR or first aid, and that the plaintiffs' own expert testimony showed an 85% or greater likelihood that the pilot would have died even with ideal medical attention immediately after collapse.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Kevin Leckelt, a licensed practical nurse at Terrebonne General Medical Center, sued the hospital's board and administrators after being suspended and terminated for refusing to disclose his HIV test results. He alleged violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Louisiana Civil Rights for Handicapped Persons Act, and federal and state constitutional protections, claiming the hospital singled him out and discriminated against him based on perceived handicap. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled for the defendants, holding that the termination for insubordination was lawful. The court reasoned that hospitals may require HIV testing of employees with known medical risk factors under CDC and institutional infection-control guidelines to protect patients and staff, and that Leckelt's refusal prevented the hospital from assessing any needed accommodations. The decision applied rational-basis review to the equal-protection claims and found no violation of the Rehabilitation Act or related statutes.

civil rightslabor & employmenthealthcare

In Neal v. Barisich, Inc., the parents of a 19-year-old crewmember who drowned after a 1987 vessel collision on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet sued the vessel owners, insurers, pilots, and related parties under general maritime law, the Jones Act, and Louisiana statutes, seeking survival damages for pre-death pain and suffering, funeral expenses, and wrongful death damages including loss of support and society, plus punitive damages on an unseaworthiness claim. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all Louisiana state-law claims, the survival claim for pre-death pain and suffering, most wrongful death claims for lack of pecuniary loss or dependency, and the punitive damages claim. It reasoned that uniform federal admiralty law displaces state wrongful death and survival statutes, that no evidence showed the decedent was conscious after the collision, that neither parent demonstrated financial dependency or expected future contributions from the decedent, and that punitive damages are unavailable under the Jones Act or general maritime unseaworthiness law in these circumstances; the court allowed the father's potential claim for funeral expenses to proceed if supported by evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedure