Case law

InPwr Inc v. Olson Restoration L L C

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 23, 2022

In short, LCMH clearly believes that the Inskeep Email is evidence of the fraudulent activity it seeks to expose,5 but LCMH does not show that the Inskeep Email was made in furtherance of that fraudulent activity. … Application of law governing waiver of privilege In its reply brief, LCMH raises the argument that the Inskeep email does not qualify for protection under laws governing inadvertent disclosures because, in

Henderson v. Cazlelot

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 11, 2024

The legal conclusion of deliberate indifference must rest on facts clearly evincing "wanton" actions on the part of defendants. See Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1985). In Smith v. … Absent an abuse of discretion, federal courts are loathe to interfere with custodial classifications established by prison officials." Whitley v.

Delaney v. Merchants River Transportation

829 F. Supp. 186 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 26, 1993

Furthermore, HBC was in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling barges, which clearly has an effect on maritime commerce. … This is clearly the type of injury which invokes the usual concepts of maritime law.

Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

921 F. Supp. 2d 605 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jan 30, 2013

“It is well established that a public employee may not be discharged for exercising his or her right to free speech under the first amendment.” 65 To establish such a claim, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: … Second, Polanco has not alleged that he was qualified for the position he occupied. Third, Polanco has not alleged an adverse employment action related to his membership in a protected class.

St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson

986 F. Supp. 409 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Oct 22, 1997

Participation in “isolated” or “sporadic” predicate acts does not qualify an individual or legal entity as a RICO person. Crowe, 43 F.3d 198 (5th Cir.1995). … Counterplaintiffs have failed *424 to provide an affidavit qualifying the billing statement as admissible evidence.

Gramm v. Fire District 9 DeSoto Parish

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 12, 2025

Additionally, he asserts that Defendants’ action “were done in a knowing, willful, and reckless manner and in bad faith, and violate clearly established statutory rights of which a reasonable person in the place of the … Merely stating that Defendants retaliated against him and violated his “clearly established statutory rights” is insufficient at the pleading stage.

Conner v. Andrepont

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Dec 12, 2024

Factually frivolous claims are those that are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational or wholly incredible. Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998); Horton v. … Plaintiff fails to establish any clear claims for relief in this Complaint. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed for failing to

Book v. LaSalle Parish School Board

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Oct 1, 2021

. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) claims against the School Board for the actions of Superintendent Tullos; (ii) Superintendent Tullos is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff was afforded due process and cannot show … that Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right; and (iii) dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claim for defamation is warranted.

Jeanes v. McBride

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 4, 2019

Jeanes clearly states she brings this claim against all Defendants, including McBride. … Substantive laws ‘either establish new rules, rights, and duties or change existing ones.’

Manufacturing Chemists Ass'n v. Costle

455 F. Supp. 968 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 4, 1978

The standards for reviewing a motion for summary judgment are well established. … “[I]f it is not clearly established that there is no dispute as to the facts which would justify judgment for one of the parties, then the court may not properly grant him judgment, even though each side has moved for summary

Modern Group v. Tiger Environmental & Rental Services, LLC

640 F. Supp. 2d 820 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 10, 2009

The Modern Group’s marks are affixed to metal containers which are manufactured and rented by the Modern Group, which clearly identifies and distinguishes these metal containers from those manufactured and rented by others … Contrary to Tiger’s position, sales of goods are not necessary to establish trademark use; for purposes of the Lanham Act, transportation alone qualifies.

Sauseda

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Dec 4, 2025

A plaintiff must establish that a prison official “refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for … The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against this entity because it does not qualify as a juridical person. See Henderson v. Mid States Servs., Inc., 67 F.

United States v. Williams

860 F. Supp. 1155 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 18, 1994

Such misstatements were clearly misrepresentations of material facts. Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d at 979 . See also United States v. Anaya, 615 F.Supp. 823, 825 (N.D.I11.1985). … The government did establish that the defendants purchased the weapons for Jimmy Williams, Jr.

Reed v. Pool Offshore Co.

521 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 28, 1981

There is no question that the holding of In re Dearborn clearly calls for the fixed platform defendants to pay the Armstrong heirs for their negligence. … The evidence in this case clearly established that there was concurrent negligence on the part of Pool and Mobil. The indemnity agreement between Crown and Mobil is the same, although the wording is slightly different.

Patsaw v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.

56 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 23, 1944

Co., 113 Ind.App. 518 , 49 N.E.2d 387, 390 , the court said: “One of the- main purposes of this amendment was to eliminate the necessity of establishing that at the moment of his injury the employee was actually engaged in … We must sustain the motion to dismiss, for it clearly appears from the petition and the facts that plaintiffs exclusive remedy is under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, not under the Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation

Topolewski v. Police Jury

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 12, 2025

Therefore, it was clearly established that the police jury could not be held liable for employment discrimination claims and granted summary judgment in the police jury’s favor. The Court finds the same here. … prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

Robinson v. Lipps

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 5, 2021

Defendants alternatively seek dismissal of Robinson’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim on the grounds that Lipps is entitled to qualified immunity. … The motion is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it seeks dismissal of Robinson’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim on the grounds of qualified immunity.

Birdsong v. B & D Operating Co Inc

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 5, 2025

La. 2022) (Foote, J.), which addressed qualified immunity defenses against civil rights claims brought by 17 plaintiffs against 21 police officers. … Such specificity is required in civil rights complaints because qualified immunity claims must be addressed separately for each individual defendant. Meadours v.

Chastant v. Headrick Outdoor, Inc.

876 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 15, 1995

In order to determine whether the rental payments were late and thereby determine whether termination was proper, we must establish when the rent is due. … The records of checks tendered clearly evidence this practice. See History in Findings Of Fact supra.

Adams v. DeVille

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 17, 2021

It is well established that “suit by private parties to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” … Furthermore, there is no provision waiving immunity in the MLSSA.