Case law

United States v. Ratcliff

381 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 23, 2005

The defendant had insufficient income to qualify for the loan; therefore, a local businessman with sufficient assets co-signed for the loan. … That being said, it must still be shown that there is a nexus between the defendant’s alleged fraudulent scheme and his use of the mails in furtherance of that scheme. 115 This nexus must be established in order to prove

D'Amico

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 26, 2026

Here, State Farm says, requirements (1)–(3) “are clearly satisfied.” (Id. at 11.) There was a valid, final judgment in the first suit, which involved the same parties. (Id.) … The Louisiana Supreme Court has emphasized that “[t]he doctrine of res judicata cannot be invoked unless all its essential elements are present, and each necessary element must be established beyond all question.”

Dyson v. Cain

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Dec 8, 2022

Dyson claims that he clearly indicated to his defense attorney and to the court that he wished to appeal his conviction.2 However, his defense attorney did not file an appeal.3 After attempting to file late post-conviction … The District Court did not rule on his writ until after Flores-Ortega was published, so the relevant constitutional principles to consider the writ were already established at the time Judge Beer articulated his denial

Knight v. City East Baton Rouge

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Nov 22, 2021

Thus, it qualifies as a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59{e). … “A Rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the correctness of a judgment.’"44 “A Rule 59(e) motion must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence”'® and “is not

Fletcher

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 15, 2026

MedVet attempts to qualify this statement but fails to provide a citation for the qualification. See Rec. Doc. 25-1, ¶ 22. 29 Rec. … It clearly violates Louisiana law and is not subject to reformation.

City of Baton Rouge/East Baton Rouge Parish v. Bank of America, N.A.

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 8, 2021

Louisiana considered the defendant’s argument that, because it was registered with FINRA, it was exempt from LUTPA.32 The court concluded that FINRA is an independent regulator and that an agency licensed by FINRA did not qualify … Plaintiffs’ Opposition offers only the conclusory statement that “Defendants” (in globo) “clearly breached [their] duties when they failed to provide investment advice in the City of Baton Rouge’s best interest and continued

Lewis v. United States of America

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Aug 4, 2020

Approved jurisdictional determinations are “clearly designated” actions from which an administrative appeal may be taken. 33 C.F.R. §§ 331.2; 331.5(a)(1). … May 26, 2016) (where matter remanded to agency to clarify the administrative record and for the agency to clearly explain the basis for its decision based on the record).

Jackson v. The Country Club of Louisiana, Inc.

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

Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n. 9 (5th Cir.2007) (“[I]t is clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to take judicial notice of matters of public record.”) (citing Cinel v. … R.S. 23:1021, et seq., provides immunity to an employer from negligence-based actions brought by employees.

Reed

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Aug 12, 2026

In establishing a LUTPA claim, “the plaintiff must show the alleged conduct offends established public policy and . . . is immoral, 8 unethical, oppressive … establishes unfair competition.”

Hardy, Jr. v. Savage Services Corporation

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 14, 2023

The opposing party must also specifically reference the paragraph number of each fact being admitted, denied, or qualified. Id. … Apr. 15, 2021), this Court held: Where a company such as Sasol clearly delineates its operations between services provided within its

Harbour v. Sirico

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jul 8, 2019

Factors relevant to this determination include: (1) whether there are material issues of fact at issue; (2) whether there has been substantial prejudice; (3) whether the grounds for default have been clearly established … Addressing the third Lindsey factor, Plaintiffs argue that the grounds for default are clearly established based on the timeline set forth above: service of suit on November 7, 2018; no responsive pleadings filed; motion

Delaware Valley Fish Company v. 3SOUTH LLC

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

(See Doc. 47 at 2-6.) 2 When the SMF and RSMF are cited together in this ruling, the fact was either admitted by 3South or qualified in such a way as to make the stated fact deemed admitted. See M.D. La. Civ. … But, “under Louisiana law, testimonial (parol) evidence is clearly admissible to show error even where the contract language is clear and unambiguous.” Hymel v.

Doucet-Speer, APLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Mar 27, 2025

“Only a qualified person who holds shares shall be entitled to vote voting shares, and participate in the corporation’s earnings. … No such transfer – by assignment or otherwise – has been established.

NCC Financial, LLC v. Investar Bank, N.A.

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

The term “collectively” appears in the Mortgage’s opening paragraph, which states, in full: BE IT KNOWN, that before the undersigned authorities, Notaries Public, duly commissioned and qualified in and for … In sum, the Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded that the Mortgage clearly and explicitly does not secure debt owed under the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note, and, thus, parol evidence is not admissible to determine

Fields v. QBE Speciality Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 25, 2021

Clearly, Fields’ cooperation was an issue throughout the adjustment process. 46 Rec. Doc. No. 23-2, p. 2 ¶ 14. 47 Rec. Doc. … Fields explains his “qualified” response with the statement that “QBE’s internal documents reflect ‘Agreed for 5 months loss of use based on $15,000/month.

Lewis v. Eye Care Surgery Center, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Apr 20, 2023

Interrogatory No. 9 seeks information regarding Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain other employment or establish self-employment since her discharge. … Request for Production No. 13 seeks documents establishing, related to, or referring to Defendant’s pay scales, procedures, and policies.

A.A. v. GEE

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · May 25, 2021

Clearly, the Court cannot make determinations of medical necessity in the first instance, and therefore shall exercise its discretion to limit Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition accordingly. … Defendants concede that Plaintiffs have retained qualified counsel.

Simmons v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jan 6, 2020

Each such statement shall begin with the designation “Admitted,” “Denied,” or “Qualified” and, in the case of an admission, shall end with such 1 Rec. Doc. … Moreover, there is no supporting or documentary evidence of an official policy or testimony by a corporate representative to establish that McGee’s understanding of this protocol is, indeed, an established policy or procedure

Campbell v. Verma Systems, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Feb 18, 2022

Plaintiff has waived any objections not timely made, other than those pertaining to any applicable privileges or immunities. … The response “none” is clearly inconsistent with Plaintiff’s other responses providing that he has been employed since his termination.

Pike v. Office of Alcohol & Tobacco Control

157 F. Supp. 3d 523 · District Court, M.D. Louisiana · Sep 22, 2015

Plaintiff also alleges that she was a qualified individual as defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (8), as she successfully performed her duties as an administrative assistant for one year and nine months. … Indeed, this Court has recently stated that "the Fifth Circuit has explained that 'it is clearly proper in deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to take judicial notice of matters of public record.’ ” Davis v.