Articles Posted in Civil Matter

On TV, lawyers are often shown dramatically acting out speeches in courtrooms and confronting witnesses. Those litigators do often have to speak and cross examine individuals, but in reality, much of an attorney’s role is to make sure the procedural and pleading aspects of a lawsuit are done correctly. Some of this procedure is based on a strategy of knowing what court to file a claim in in order to gain the best opportunity for recovery for your client. A St. Mary Parish School crossing guard’s lawsuit was dismissed when the court found that he had already filed an identical claim which had been dismissed.

Belva Webb, a school crossing guard, was instructed by St. Mary Parish School District to complete a drug screening test.  This request came after parents complained to the school district that Webb seemed “unstable” when completing his crossing guard duties. The notice of this request came on February 17, 2012, and on February 23, Webb was told that the results of the test showed his prescription medication was “safety sensitive,” so he should not be working while on these medications. Due to the results of the test, the school district informed Webb that he should not come back to work unless he was contacted to do so.

Webb and his wife brought a lawsuit in federal court against several parties and alleging a violation of his constitutional rights, and that the various defendants had conspired to have Webb fired. All defendants filed a motion to dismiss Webb’s claims, which the federal court granted on the grounds that Webb failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 USC §§1983, 1985, and 1986.

Sometimes, the most complicated cases can have the most simple resolution. For West Baton Rouge plaintiffs who sued mining companies for extracting resources underneath their property without their knowledge, the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit rested on the plain meaning of statutory language.

TMR Exploration, Inc. was a mining company owned by Raymond Lasseigne. Since surface property (houses and land) are often legally separate from mining rights (the resources underneath the surface), the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation granted TMR a permit in 2007 to extract minerals from A. Wilbert’s Sons, LLC’s property. The only trouble was that this property belonged to no A. Wilbert but rather the descendants of a Peter and Elnora Hill, specifically Calvert Hill. This oversight resulted in TMR slant drilling into Mr. Hill’s property without his knowledge. This type of drilling is set up on one property and then drilled through the ground at an angle to access resources on a different property. Accordingly, Mr. Hill had no knowledge that TMR (and successive mining companies) had extracted minerals two miles underneath his property for six years.

Mr. Hill brought this lawsuit against TMR and Mr. Lasseigne in December of 2013, claiming that Mr. Lasseigne knew it wasn’t A. Wilbert’s Sons, LLC’s property but rather knew it was Mr. Hill’s. Mr. Lasseigne countered this, arguing that TMR’s involvement in mining underneath Mr. Hill’s property ended in June 2010 and was passed on to a different mining company. According to Louisiana statutes, one cannot sue the head of a business directly for negligence that his or her business caused “more than three years from the date of the alleged act.” La. R.S.12:1502. Mr. Lasseigne’s involvement in the mining ended June of 2013, six months before Mr. Hill brought this lawsuit. Accordingly, the Eighteenth Judicial District Court ruled in favor of Mr. Lasseigne, and Mr. Hill appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.

Freedom of speech is one of America’s most celebrated rights. However, it does not mean that courts tolerate all types of speech. After all, we have all heard that the freedom of speech does not allow an individual to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Despite there being restrictions, courts take the freedom of speech extremely seriously and will not allow it to be encroached simply because someone felt offended by a certain use of free speech. 

Robert and Lisa Mayeux and their daughter, Rebecca, were members of the Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church. Upon hearing from their daughter that George J. Charlet, Jr., a fellow churchgoer, sexually abused her, Robert and Lisa sued not only Charlet, but also Reverend Jeffrey Bayhi and the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge as well for being complacent of the abuse despite knowing that Charlet was abusing their daughter. 

Louisiana Television Broadcasting (“LTB”) ran several stories of the above sexual abuse case. Many of these stories prominently featured Bayhi. In some of the graphics that accompanied the stories, there were texts that stated that Rebecca was abused by a priest and that the priest had died during the investigation. However, these texts were erroneous. Charlet, the alleged perpetrator, was not a priest–Bayhi was. However, LTB did acknowledge that these texts were erroneous later in time. Furthermore, these stories showed video footage of Bayhi in his priest’s cassock. Bayhi filed a lawsuit against LTB for defamation. LTB filed a Motion to Strike in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 971, stating that Bayhi did not have a legitimate claim. The Trial Court granted LTB’s motion.

Trials can be extremely expensive. One of the most expensive parts of a trial can be the costs associated with taking depositions. Therefore, it is in a party’s best interest to recuperate those costs in the aftermath of a successful outcome. In fact, it is the general rule that included in the damages of a successful party are the costs associated with depositions. However, a trial court may sometimes erroneously or negligently include such costs in a party’s damages. 

On October 24, 2014, Pratima Shah, while making a left turn from Causeway Boulevard to Jefferson Highway in Metairie, crashed into a vehicle driven by Dr. James Mayo. Shah filed a lawsuit against Mayo and the Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”), Mayo’s insurance provider. Two days before the trial, Shah’s lawyer filed a Motion to Exclude Live Trial Testimony and for Costs, which was made to bar Mayo from testifying at the trial and to recuperate the costs associated with the perpetuation deposition Shah’s lawyer had to take of Mayo. 

Apparently, Mayo was initially going to be unavailable for the trial. Therefore, Shah’s lawyer had to travel to New York, where Mayo resided, to take a perpetuation deposition of Mayo. A perpetuation deposition is a deposition that is made because a witness cannot make it to the actual trial. The statements made in a perpetuation deposition can be used in lieu of the witness’s live testimony. However, Mayo was able to make it to trial, so Shah’s taking of Mayo’s perpetuation deposition would have been a waste of time and money if Mayo was able to testify in person at the trial. The Trial Court did, however, allow Mayo to testify at the trial. Despite allowing Mayo to testify, the Trial Court ruled in favor of Shah. The Trial Court ruled that Shah was entitled to $2,885.00. This amount did not, however, include the costs associated with the perpetuation deposition Shah’s lawyer made. Shah appealed, asking for money damages to recuperate the costs associated with the perpetual deposition.