Articles Posted in Litigation

by

chemistry-lab-2-1494465-1024x768Americans value their privacy. Yet in certain contexts, privacy is not absolute. For instance, an employer may order an employee to get a blood test if pertinent to a work-related incident, even if that employer is the government itself.

The Shreveport Police Chief gave such an order when the department received a complaint that one of its officers was intoxicated. Pat Hensley, the officer in question, was found by fellow officers driving in a state of intoxication. His slurred speech and inability to perform basic cognitive and physical tasks prompted the officers to arrest him for Driving While Intoxicated. While in custody, Hensley underwent a blood test at the order of the Shreveport Police Chief. However, there was no warrant for the blood test. The blood test was positive for alcohol in Hensley’s bloodstream. Hensley sued the City of Shreveport and the Police Chief for the warrantless blood test. He argued in the United States District Court that the warrantless blood test was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and his rights under the Louisiana State Constitution. The specific rights Hensley claimed the Police Chief and the City violated were the rights that protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment states that the Government shall not violate “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Louisiana State Constitution also has a provision similar to the above. Though we may generally think of these laws to apply to the searches and seizures of external, physical objects, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that a blood test counts as a search. See Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 446 (2013).

Continue reading

by

writing-kiddo-1432496-1024x683The worst thing that could happen if you are in a bad situation is for that situation to get worse. A New Orleans, Louisiana, resident found himself in that exact scenario when he was in legal trouble and subsequently found himself in even deeper legal trouble.

MT, the defendant, owned with his partners, a construction contracting company, Garner Services. When MT was the Chief Operating Officer, he and his brother-in-law, DF, created fictitious invoices for work never performed, amounting to $925,000 to a company that MT himself controlled.

After his fraud was discovered, MT was criminally charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, which he pled guilty to in exchange for no additional charges filed. The Government also informed MT that he would be indicted for concealing financial information to block the forfeiture of certain assets. Before the plea deal was signed, MT hired a private investigator, Tim Wilson, who spoke with two of the Assistant United States Attorney’s (“AUSAs”) for the Eastern District of Louisiana on MT’s behalf. Wilson stated the AUSAs promised not to execute on the forfeiture indictment. This “secret deal” was later contested by the AUSAs, who denied having made such a promise.

Continue reading

by

old-book-1423004-1024x768Many people think that if they make a will, the administration of their property after death will go smoothly, with no questions asked. This is not always the case. A Louisiana case out of Jefferson Parish dealt with one of these precarious situations.

After her husband, Anthony’s sudden death in 2005, Sharon Sylvester, found herself in a legal battle with Anthony’s first wife, Joyce Sylvester. Anthony’s will, which had been drafted four years before he married Sharon, stated, “Upon my death, after all just debts are paid, I leave and bequeath all things I may die possessed of to my four children, namely….”, and subsequently named the children of Anthony and Joyce. The will was never amended before Anthony passed away. Three weeks after Anthony’s death, Sharon filed a petition, containing a descriptive list of the assets of the estate and a copy of Anthony’s will, in Jefferson Parish.

Louisiana is a community property state. This means that property acquired during a valid marriage by either spouse or by both of them, is presumed to be community property that belongs to the “marital economic community.” On the death of one spouse, the surviving spouse gets half of the community property and the estate gets half. Property acquired before the marriage belongs to the spouse who acquired it.

Continue reading

by

men-shaking-hands-1024x683A contract creates a level of trust between two businesses or individuals, but what happens when one individual fails to uphold their end of the bargain? Or worse yet, what happens when an individual purposefully misrepresents their ability to uphold their end of the bargain? These are issues the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal recently addressed in a lawsuit between Meyer & Associates, Inc. (“Meyer & Associates”) and the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana.

The Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana is a federally recognized Indian tribe composed of an elected four-member Tribal Council and a separately elected Tribal Council spokesperson. The Tribe conducts all of its governmental and business matters from the offices in Allen Parish, Louisiana. In July 2001, the Tribe decided to enter into an agreement in order to better manage the Tribe’s casino facility in Kinder, Louisiana. The Coushatta Tribe agreed to enter into a consulting services contract with Meyer & Associates, a Louisiana corporation that provides professional engineering services to its clients.

In early 2002, the members of the Tribal Council and the vice president of Meyer & Associates, Richard Meyer, began discussions concerning the possibility to design and construct a facility for the casino’s general electricity, the individuals of the Coushatta Tribe, and potentially outside customers. Because Meyer’s & Associates did not have specific experience in this area, Mr. Meyer began assembling a team of experts to assist him. For the next several months, the project team began exploring the possibilities of developing the electric program. During the Tribal Council meeting on December 17, 2002, Mr. Meyer presented the most up-to-date study on the feasibility of the electrical project – this presentation gave the Tribal Council enough confidence to accept the project on the January 14, 2003 meeting. With this acceptance, a second agreement was written. This second agreement gave the Chairman of the Tribal Council the ability to negotiate and execute any new agreements with Meyer & Associates, and also stated that that the Tribe’s financial obligation to the project was $10,000,000 in addition to the $3,375,000 that was necessary for all the preliminary work.

Continue reading

by

time-s-slipping-away-2-1419474-683x1024When an employee is injured on the job, workers’ compensation is often a faster and more efficient method to seek damages than other judicial remedies. Once a judgment is entered, it is important for the injured party to promptly collect damages because this judgment could prescribe, or no longer be enforceable.

Deborah Beebe was injured while working at Paul Eikert’s store in 2002. Two years later on November 16, 2004, a Worker’s Compensation Judge (“WCJ”) awarded Ms. Beebe damages of $7,666.25 in medical bills, $6,000 in penalties an attorney fees, and any future medical bills relating to the accident, all of which Mr. Eikert had to pay. Ms. Beebe waited until 2014 to seek payment from Mr. Eikert for these damages, of which Mr. Eikert was unaware. He filed to nullify the WCJ’s judgment on August 20, 2014, due to lack of notice. On September 4, Ms. Beebe filed an exception to his petition, one month later Mr. Eikert filed an opposition to her exception, Ms. Beebe then filed another exception, and on December 17, 2014, Mr. Eikert filed a motion arguing that the 2004 judgment had prescribed because ten years had passed.

Ms. Beebe filed a petition to revive her Worker’s Compensation judgment on January 7, 2015. In the alternative, she argued that her judgment was not a money judgment and thus needed no revival. The pertinent rule here is La. C.C. art. 3501 which states that “a money judgment rendered by a trial court of this state is prescribed by the lapse of ten years from its signing . . . .” La. C.C. art. 3501. Accordingly, Ms. Beebe argued that the judgment was not a money judgment (and thus the statute did not apply), while Mr. Eikert argued that it was a money judgment and thus had prescribed.

Continue reading

by

writing-1238365-1024x768Plaintiffs cannot litigate multiple lawsuits brought over the same cause of action. For example, if a company wrongfully terminates someone’s employment, the employee can traditionally bring only one lawsuit addressing this issue and not a second or third after a court decides the first. This barring is called res judicata. Former Southern University System President Dr. Ralph Slaughter’s lawsuit against the Board of Supervisors of Southern University A&M in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, was dismissed because of this bar.

Dr. Slaughter and the Board settled a case in 2007 where Dr. Slaughter was fired after bringing workplace sexual harassment claims in federal court. Dr. Slaughter then dropped these claims because the Board signed him to a two-year employment contract running from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2009. The Board reserved the right to terminate his employment on or before April 1, 2009, and on March 27, 2009, The Board exercised this right, voting not to extend Dr. Slaughter’s employment past the contract’s expiration.

Dr. Slaughter brought his first lawsuit addressing this termination on April 2, 2009, in a Baton Rouge District Court. He claimed that his employment termination was void because the Board did not adhere to Open Meetings Law. The Board filed to dismiss for no cause of action, and Dr. Slaughter himself also filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted with prejudice on May 26, 2009.

Continue reading

by

emergency-hospital-sign-1024x683Deadlines matter. They matter in all areas of life, but in the legal world, missing a deadline can determine whether legal action will move forward or not. With every cause of action, there are time frames for filing claims and appeals and oftentimes—even in situations where recovery seems necessary or deserved—courts will dismiss cases filed outside these time frames. In a lawsuit against Rapides Regional Medical Center (Rapides Regional), Mrs. Susanna Duckering learned this lesson the hard way.

After being treated at Rapides Regional in August of 2011, Mrs. Duckering filed a complaint for medical malpractice. In response, Rapides Regional filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a motion for judgment as a matter of law rather than on the merits. The basis for this motion was that Mrs. Duckering did not have any evidence that Rapides Regional diverted from the standard of care or caused her injury. The medical review panel for Rapides Regional supported this by stating there was no evidence of a breach to the applicable standard of care. Mrs. Duckering did not oppose this motion, did not provide evidence that opposed the motion, and did not come to the hearing. After the hearing, Ninth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Rapides granted the Motion for Summary Judgement and on February 9, 2015, Mrs. Duckering’s lawsuit was dismissed.

In response, Mrs. Duckering filed a Motion for a New Trial, believing a new trial was necessary since the Motion for Summary Judgement was granted by default all because her counsel did not have the hearing scheduled on his calendar, and missed the hearing due to this mistake. After a hearing on March 23, 2015, the Trial Court denied the Motion for a New Trial and Mrs. Duckering appealed this to the Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit.

Continue reading

by

alvaro-serrano-133360-unsplash-1024x683What happens when you file a lawsuit and then fail to file any pleadings beyond the initial Petition for Damages? Is the case eligible for a new trial? Or is simply determined abandoned? Typically, when you wait too long to respond after a lawsuit has been filed, the case will be considered abandoned, and it will be dismissed. There are two types of case dismissals: (1) dismissal with prejudice, and (2) dismissal without prejudice. Generally, when a case is dismissed with prejudice, you cannot get a new trial even if the statute of limitations has not run out, and there is no right to appeal. See La. C.C.P. art. 2162.

In August 2005, Tyrone Johnson filed a tort claim against his employer, Pacarini, and his co-employee, Mr. Gay, alleging that he was injured at work when a t-bar weighing 4000 pounds rolled onto his right leg and ankle. In November 2008, a subpoena duces tecum was issued to Pacarini, meaning Mr. Johnson subpoenaed Pacarini to either have an agent appear in court or provide relevant documents to Mr. Johnson. Subsequently, Mr. Johnson failed to file another pleading until September 2014, when he filed an amended petition adding another defendant.

On January 30, 2015, Mr. Gay and Pacarini filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that Mr. Johnson abandoned the case by failing to file any pleadings between 2009 and 2013. The motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, which, as discussed above, means Mr. Johnson is not entitled to a new trial, although he did file a motion for a new trial which was subsequently denied. As a result, Mr. Johnson appealed, alleging that he intended to appeal the merits of the final judgment of the motion to dismiss. He alleged that the motion to dismiss should have been denied because he sent a letter to defense counsel regarding setting the case for trial.

Continue reading

by

image-2-1024x683While running errands all day, to the cleaners and the grocery store, the last thing on one’s mind is getting hurt along the way. Proving fault for an injury can sometimes be more of a pain than the injury itself. Collecting evidence like pictures or eye witness reports is the last thing you want to do after suffering a fall, but to prove your case in court, it is necessary. Failure to do so can result in not only the pain from your injury but also the bill.

In Kenner, Louisiana, Mary Upton went to get groceries with her husband. She entered Rouse’s grocery store after seeing an advertisement for the sale of watermelons. She walked around the display to find a good watermelon. As she stepped over to pick one up, she unknowingly placed her foot into the pallet openings under the box. She turned to show her husband the watermelon she had picked, but he told her he did not want that watermelon. Mrs. Upton turned back to return the watermelon to the box and as she stepped away from the display, she twisted her foot within the pallet and fell.

Mrs. Upton sued for damages of her injury. Rouse’s, along with their insurer Liberty Mutual, motioned for summary judgment on the basis that Mrs. Upton did not meet her burden of proof or provide any evidence that the grocery store acted without reasonable care. The trial court granted the motion and Mrs. Upton appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment, effectively ending Mrs. Upton’s case.

Continue reading

by

image-1024x656Everyone has that one coworker that just gets under their skin. Some days even the sound of their voice feels like it will push you over the edge. However, when things turn physical in the workplace, not only is an employee at fault, but the company may be as well.

In the Parish of Tangipahoa, Towana Carr worked at Sanderson Farms along with her co-employee, Kevin Webb. According to Carr, while at work Webb deliberately struck her with a “pallet jack” that knocked her into a wall. She then claimed Webb struck her with the equipment for a second time and left her with severe injuries. Prior to the accident, Carr claimed that Webb had threatened her with bodily harm outside of work. However, when she informed her employer, Sanderson Farms, of the threat, they said they could not do anything as the threat was not made on their property. Carr sued with a claim that Sanderson Farm was vicariously liable for her injuries. Sanderson Farm filed a petition stating that Webb was not acting within the scope of his employment; thus, Sanderson Farm not liable. The trial court dismissed all claims against Sanderson Farm and Carr appealed.

An employer may be held liable for intentional acts of an employee under LA Rev Stat § 23:1032 (2014).  The courted followed Baumeister v. Plunkett, 673 So. 2d 994 (La. 1996) and used a set of  factors to determine whether an employee’s intentional conduct is closely enough connected to his employment duties to impose vicarious liability on his employer for the conduct: 1) whether the tortious act was rooted in his job duties, (2) whether the offense act was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee’s duties, 3) whether the act at the place the place of work, and (4) whether it happened during normal business hours.

Continue reading
Contact Information
1140 St Charles Ave
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 521-6000
Fax: (504) 617-6300

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design