Case law

Fuselier v. Everest National Insurance Co

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 26, 2021

Evidence should only be excluded in limine where it is “clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Hull v. Ford, 2008 WL 178890, at *1 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (citing Hawthorne Partners v. … Finally, Rule 702 requires that a witness be qualified to offer expert opinions.

Louisiana v. Becerra

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 21, 2022

The Head Start Mandate does not allow alternatives of natural immunity, social distancing, or additional testing. 86 Fed. Reg. 68066. … The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. Id. at 561.

Buxton v. Midwestern Ins. Co.

102 F. Supp. 500 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jan 11, 1952

The record shows that Houston qualified to do business in this State, and has been doing business here, since April 7, 1937. 4 . … This later provision in Louisiana law makes the Wisconsin case clearly inapposite.

Matte v. Sunshine Mobile Homes, Inc.

270 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 9, 2003

Clearly, the allegations in this paragraph fall far short of the constitutional requirement that plaintiffs establish an “injury in fact” which is “concrete and particularized,” as *818 well as “actual or imminent, not conjectural … Private individuals such as the named and unnamed putative class members are clearly the intended beneficiaries of the Act.

BMA Financial Services, Inc. v. Guin

164 F. Supp. 2d 813 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 27, 2001

Thus, in accordance with the plain language of the Rule, BMA may be forced to arbitrate these claims if Thomason qualified as an “associated person” of BMA during the Relevant Period. 2. … While BMA concedes this point throughout its memorandum, this court notes that not all courts clearly agree with this reading of Rule 10301(a).

Bailey v. Daniels

679 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Dec 30, 2009

Daniels would suffice to establish liability under the DPPA. … Daniels clearly used his position as a deputy sheriff to acquire the information, there is no contention before the Court that he misrepresented any fact in order to do so.

Sparkman v. Highway Insurance Company

266 F. Supp. 197 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 28, 1967

Proceeding now to the issue of coverage itself, plaintiff produced as witnesses three highly qualified insurance experts. The first, H. P. … The accident clearly arose out of the operation of the Jones truck.” (Emphasis added.)

Romac Environmental Services L L C v. Wildcat Fluids L L C

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 22, 2022

Jacobus was not qualified to opine on the lanyard failure because he was not “an expert in sewing” and had never been qualified in “as an expert in the manufacture of a safety lanyard.” … In sum, the Court GRANTS the Daubert Motion filed by DEL and Romac on the ground that WildCat has not established that Brown is qualified to testify on the subject matter of the economic damages models that WildCat proposes

Givs v. City of Eunice

512 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 21, 2007

Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination by proving (1) that he is a member of a protected class, (2) that he was qualified for the position … The Court also finds that plaintiff easily meets the third prong as he clearly suffered an adverse action in being terminated from employment.

Manufacturing Chemists Ass'n v. Costle

451 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jun 8, 1978

The standards for reviewing a motion for preliminary injunction are well-established. … Part 1248), and a large percentage of the substances about to be designated as “hazardous” by the EPA would not be clearly identified by the STC Code.

Salard v. Salard

781 F. Supp. 2d 363 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 10, 2011

“Tutorship by nature takes place of right, but the natural tutor must qualify for the office as provided by law.” La. Crv. C. art. 248. … The Court finds no particular guidance from these cases and thus turns to the broad rules established by the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court to interpret 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(3)(B).

Carpenter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

614 F. Supp. 2d 745 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · May 20, 2008

Under this framework, a plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of discrimination by establishing that: (1) He is disabled or is regarded as disabled; (2) he is qualified for the job; (3) he was subjected to an adverse … Moreover, these medical conditions clearly are impairments, in that they cause her to suffer pain. To qualify as a “disability” under the ADA, however, the impairment must be substantial.

Spears v. Louisiana College

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Jul 24, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination based on circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must show she (1) was at least 40 years old, (2) was qualified for the position, (3) suffered an adverse employment action … To establish a prima facie case of gender-based discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) she was within the protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position sought; (3) she was subject to an

Granger v. Moneymaker

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Apr 22, 2024

dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In order to prevail on such claims, prisoner must establish that the delay in providing medical care was “sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v.

Topolewski v. Police Jury

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

demeanor was very, very nice,” and “she seemed to be a great person.”20 Plaintiff declared in his deposition that in addition to accusing Sullivan Stolier of making a false report, Washington used the word “racial” and clearly … The burden of establishing a prima facie case is not “onerous” ... a plaintiff need only “prove by a preponderance the evidence that he was discharged from the position from which he was qualified ‘under circumstances which

Hebert v. CXY Energy, Inc.

72 F. Supp. 2d 681 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 13, 1999

Whether an activity qualifies as ultra-hazardous in Louisiana is a question of law. Id. at 550 . … Accordingly, no basis for establishing a legal duty of CXY to the decedent exists and in turn, no basis for establishing a legal duty of CXY to plaintiffs.

In Re Combustion, Inc.

978 F. Supp. 673 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Sep 18, 1997

Analysis A district court shall accept the report of a master unless clearly erroneous. F.R.C.P. 53(e)(2). This Court finds no clear error in either of the reports submitted by the Special Master. … Hearing are hereby DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that the Court has not issued a Final Judgment pursuant to FRCP 54(b) on any motion or application to add or reinstate persons to the group of persons qualified

BRFHH Shreveport, LLC v. Willis Knighton Medical Center

176 F. Supp. 3d 606 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 2016

The Fifth Circuit has long held that “a claim may [ ] be dismissed if a successful affirmative defense appears clearly on the face of the pleadings.” Clark v. Amoco Prod. … The court noted that a vertical acquisition standing alone does not qualify as anticompetitive conduct, id. at 124 (citing Belfiore v. N.Y.

Sepulvado v. ALPHA DRILLING, LLC

730 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Aug 2, 2010

Id. at 371 , 115 S.Ct. 2172 (suggesting summary judgment is appropriate if the plaintiff clearly cannot reach this threshold level). … In order to establish that it is entitled to the partial summary judgment that it seeks, Axxis was required to establish, as a matter of law, that Sepulvado had been permanently reassigned after his first accident.

Firatli

District Court, W.D. Louisiana · Feb 27, 2026

* The Court finds that Petitioner has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for at least three reasons. … In his original motion, Petitioner argued that he did not qualify for expedited removal because he had been paroled and because of the length of time he had been present in the United States.