Case law

Cutrer v. TWT Transport LLC

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 9, 2020

Here TWT, the owner of the covered auto, was neither an individual nor a sole proprietorship but was an LLC, clearly a separate legal entity from Reed, the owner of the Freightliner. … At the very least, this raises an ambiguity in the policy which requires the Court to construe the policy against the insurer who drafted the policy and in favor of coverage, a well-established principle under both Mississippi

Martin v. Roy

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 25, 2022

He pleads: At all times pertinent hereto, [Plaintiff] shows that he enjoyed clearly established rights of bodily integrity and to be free from the imposition of clearly excessive force while … Plaintiff notes, “Defendants’ reliance on the 1 Defendants make an alternative argument that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed due to qualified immunity. (Doc. 22 at 2.)

Roger Williams, et al. v. North Light Specialty Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jun 2, 2026

Local Rule 56(c) provides that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is required to “submit with its opposition a separate, short, and concise statement of material facts” that admits, denies, or qualifies the … with its summary judgment motion a Statement of Undisputed Facts.7 In response, Plaintiffs filed an Statement of Contested Material Facts.8 Plaintiffs’ submitted statement, however, did not “admit, deny, or qualify

Chisholm v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 30, 2020

The Court’s independent analysis clearly reveals that a structural conflict of interest existed. … Lee’s IME, the record evidence clearly reflects that they, in fact, did so. (Doc. 16-2, at pp. 185, 191).

Humidity Media, L.L.C. v. Rhoda Street Studios, LLC

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 28, 2023

Under Louisiana law, “[a] contract is formed by the consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance. … This act “under the circumstances [was] clearly indicative of consent.” La. Civ. Code art. 1927.

Tower Credit, Inc. v. Schott

550 B.R. 299 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 24, 2016

Nonetheless, the Code and it alone is fully preeminent and entirely preemptive where its terms, analyzed “clearly and predictably using well established principles of statutory construction,” are crystal clear. Id. … (In re Maus), 282 B.R. 836, 838 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2002) (stating that “it is clear that the nature of the garnishment action undertaken against the Debtor qualifies, for purposes of § 522(g), as an involuntary transfer of property

Jones v. Southern University

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Aug 15, 2019

Nevertheless, the Court notes that dismissal of this claim would be proper as it well-settled that sovereign immunity “bar[s] federal courts from hearing state law claims brought in federal court against state entities. … The ADA provides, in relevant part, that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities

Turtle Island Foods v. Strain

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 28, 2022

Plaintiffs labels and marketing materials clearly state that its products are plant-based, meatless, vegetarian, or vegan, and accurately list the product’s ingredients. … The Court does not doubt that the Commissioner will uphold his qualified agreement that he will not seek enforcement of the Act regarding these labels.

Barnett v. Louisiana Department of Health

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 10, 2020

However, despite the fact that Hardy was not qualified and Plaintiff was the most qualified applicant, LDH decided to leave the PM4 position unfilled. (Id.). … Under the continuing violations doctrine, a plaintiff is relieved of establishing that all of the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred within the actionable period, if the plaintiff can show a series of related acts,

Amoroso v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 26, 2021

Policy does not provide UM coverage for the Accident because it only provides property insurance for the properties owned by the family business, and because “the express, unambiguous Business Owner’s Policy language clearly … This presumption exists because the prescribed form, if properly completed, clearly evidences the insured’s intent to waive UM coverage.

Jones v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jul 25, 2019

Plaintiff’s credit score is 685-690; he claims that a score over 650 qualifies a borrower for a prime rate loan. … race) motivated the challenged action.”66 Plaintiff offered only vague and conclusory allegations which are legally insufficient to establish a claim for disparate treatment.

June Medical Services LLC v. Kliebert

250 F. Supp. 3d 27 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 26, 2017

Doe 2’s privileges at Tulane Medical Center are clearly wrong because they are contradicted by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. (Doc. 201 ¶ 47 at 12.) 297. … Furthermore, since Women’s Health would be the only clinic to serve all the women of Louisiana, it clearly could not perform that task as a logistical matter.

Garig v. Travis

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jun 30, 2021

Alternatively, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because she failed to allege sufficient facts to support her claims against Sheriff Defendants and they are entitled to qualified immunity as to the Section 1983 individual … In her opposition to the Village Defendants’ motions, Plaintiff failed to respond to Guillory’s argument about Monell liability and Sheriff Defendants’ arguments on failure to state a claim and qualified immunity.

Granier v. Vannoy

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Dec 30, 2020

who “applied clearly established federal law and found that the facts regarding the seating of Ms. … established federal law.

Smiley v. New Hampshire Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jan 28, 2021

second, his opinions lack a sufficient foundation to render them reliable; third, his methodology fails to meet the standard established in Daubert v. … While Plaintiffs’ counsel was clearly in error when it 4 At oral argument, counsel for New Hampshire conceded that it had received the ATA Estimates prior to suit being filed, that the Estimates identified the property

Williams v. Hooper

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 30, 2024

The Court finds that the First Circuit’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of second-degree murder was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal … Billingsley while they were both in prison does not qualify as a testimonial statement under the primary purpose test; Beals’s statement to Mr.

Omega Hosp., LLC v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc.

345 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 11, 2018

Here, the assignments clearly assign to Omega the right to file suits and pursue claims against the patient-assignee's insurance company to seek reimbursements, benefits, and recover other amounts for "services rendered" … The assignment specifically qualifies the assignment of rights to those for past services provided by Omega (i.e., "services rendered").

United States v. Edwards

39 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Feb 25, 1999

These rules establish a clear and actual conflict of interest which prohibits Mr. Unglesby from representing Stephen Edwards in this case. … Guidry in connection with securing a riverboat license to operate the Treasure Chest Casino. 130 Clearly, the prior representation of Mr. Guidry by Mr.

Thompson v. Mason

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Oct 30, 2024

There are two primary ways to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. … federal question.27 The Complaint does not specify if the malicious prosecution claim (or the due process and right to privacy claims) is raised under state law or federal law, but if it is raised under state law, then it clearly

Hilliard v. Tiki Tubing LLC

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 8, 2023

Several factors are relevant to this inquiry, including: (1) whether there are material issues of fact; (2) whether there has been substantial prejudice; (3) whether the grounds for default have been clearly established … Third, Defendant’s failure to defend the suit clearly establishes the grounds for default. Fourth, nothing before the Court suggests that the default was caused by good-faith mistake or excusable neglect.