This case is a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action brought by a former part-time retail sales consultant against Cingular Wireless, alleging that the company's policy of delaying payment for "exception time" hours beyond an employee's standard 19-hour schedule violated minimum wage requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 206 and related record-keeping rules. The plaintiff sought conditional class certification for similarly situated employees, claiming that unverified exception hours often resulted in paychecks covering only regular hours and thus sub-minimum wages for weeks with extra scheduled time. The court conducted an independent review of the record, statutory law, and objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. It adopted the factual background, party arguments, and applicable law sections, declined to adopt the minimum wage violation analysis, and adopted the record-keeping violation conclusion on alternative grounds.
The case involved a black female nurse who sued Dauterive Hospital and its parent company HCA for racial discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and defamation under Title VII, Louisiana employment discrimination law, and the state whistleblower statute, alleging events such as demotion from charge nurse, unequal raises, understaffing, hostile conduct by coworkers after an EEOC filing, denial of transfer, and constructive discharge. The court granted HCA's motion for summary judgment in full and dismissed all claims against it with prejudice, reasoning that HCA was not the plaintiff's employer. As to Dauterive, the court granted summary judgment in part by dismissing the Title VII claims as prescribed and certain state claims for lack of notice in the pleadings, while denying it in part and allowing remaining retaliation and defamation claims to proceed on the basis that the plaintiff had raised genuine issues of material fact regarding adverse employment actions and causation under the applicable standards.
The case concerned a worker who suffered injuries in two separate accidents while employed by drilling companies, first as a crane operator on a barge in 2006 and later as a galley hand on a land-based rig in 2007; he sued under the Jones Act for both incidents. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was not a Jones Act seaman at the time of the second accident and thus limited to Louisiana workers' compensation remedies. The court denied the motion, holding that material factual disputes existed about whether the reassignment from barge work to land operations was permanent and whether the plaintiff maintained a substantial connection to a vessel in navigation. These issues, including inferences from medical releases, employer statements, and the temporary nature of the land assignment, precluded summary judgment and required jury resolution under Chandris v. Latsis standards.
In Robertson v. W & T Offshore, Inc., the plaintiff sued W & T Offshore and Baker/MO Services for personal injuries allegedly caused by negligence on an offshore oil platform, claiming damages under tort law. W & T argued it was immune from suit because the plaintiff was its borrowed employee under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), made applicable by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, while Baker contended it was similarly immune as the nominal employer of a supervisor who was also a borrowed employee of W & T, making the two co-employees. The plaintiff opposed summary judgment by asserting genuine issues of material fact regarding control and borrowed-employee status but offered no specific evidence. The court granted both defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice, after finding that undisputed facts established borrowed-employee status for both the plaintiff and the supervisor, triggering the LHWCA's exclusive-remedy provisions and resulting tort immunity.
The case involved a plaintiff who sued Stryker Orthopaedics, alleging damages from a recalled hip replacement device used in his 2004 surgery that required revision surgery in 2008. The plaintiff asserted claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act and for redhibition based on alleged defects in the device. The court dismissed both sets of claims with prejudice. It adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the LPLA claims but rejected the recommendation to allow the redhibition claim to proceed, holding that the redhibition claim was preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 under the Supreme Court's decision in Riegel v. Medtronic because the device had received premarket approval from the FDA.
This case is an appeal from two identical bankruptcy court orders entered on April 15, 2009, that denied motions for summary judgment in adversary proceedings arising from the Chapter 7 bankruptcies of Sunnyside Land, LLC and Sunnyside Timber, LLC. The underlying disputes center on a 2005 court-approved sale of Utah property and timber under 11 U.S.C. § 363, a settlement term sheet, credit bids by SCO, and post-sale claims of fraud or misconduct potentially implicating Rule 60(b)(3) relief. The district court first addresses the appellants' motions for leave to appeal the interlocutory orders, adopts the bankruptcy court's factual findings, and examines the applicability of the one-year limitations period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and (c) as incorporated by Bankruptcy Rule 9024, along with standards for granting interlocutory review. The court notes the absence of controlling Fifth Circuit precedent and consults persuasive authority from other districts and circuits.