The case concerns a priority dispute over security interests in the Perkins Rowe mixed-use development in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, between ThornCo's construction liens arising from subcontractor work and KeyBank's mortgage obtained through assignment and consolidation of prior Wachovia and JTS mortgages. KeyBank sought summary judgment to establish that its consolidated mortgage ranks from the September 2005 recording of the Wachovia mortgage, while ThornCo argued its liens relate back to site work begun in 2003-2004 by earlier contractors. The court analyzed Louisiana statutes governing the ranking of privileges and mortgages, the validity of mortgage consolidations without novation, the effect of recorded "no work" affidavits under La. R.S. 9:4820(C), and whether preparatory work allows relation back under La. R.S. 9:4808(C). It addressed issues including potential fraud exceptions to affidavit reliance and the scope of separate works on different blocks of the property. The ruling resolves these competing motions for summary judgment on the relative priority of the interests.
The case involved a challenge by Bossier City Medical Suite, an outpatient abortion facility, to Louisiana's Act 490, which amended the Outpatient Abortion Facility Licensing Law to alter standards for license denial, suspension, revocation, and appeals, removing the prior 'substantial failure' requirement and changing review standards and remedies. The plaintiff alleged that the changes and their enforcement against another facility created a reasonable fear of arbitrary future action without notice or opportunity to cure, leading to constitutional violations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), concluding that the claims did not establish jurisdiction or a viable cause of action.
This case involves a teacher employed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the Board's policy of requiring drug and alcohol testing for any on-the-job injury violated her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The plaintiff alleged she was ordered to undergo testing after a student attack without any individualized suspicion of impairment, leading to emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of coerced consent, insufficient allegations against the superintendent, and qualified immunity. The court denied the motion, finding the complaint plausibly alleged coercion from the mandatory policy, personal involvement by the defendant, and that existing Fifth Circuit precedent clearly established the unconstitutionality of such suspicionless testing for teachers injured at work.
The case involved a Louisiana attorney suing a Texas attorney for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and related claims arising from an alleged 50/50 fee-sharing agreement and unpaid expenses in a joint Texas pharmaceutical lawsuit that settled without the plaintiff's knowledge. The defendant removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, but the plaintiff moved to remand, submitting an affidavit waiving any recovery exceeding $75,000. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the jurisdictional amount was not apparent on the face of the petition and that the defendant's evidence concerning potential attorney's fees was too speculative to satisfy the preponderance standard.
In Williams v. Commissioner, taxpayers sued the IRS Commissioner after levies on their assets for alleged 1998 tax deficiencies, which they attributed to erroneous documents, seeking both a refund of over $250,000 and access to withheld records under FOIA. The court granted dismissal of the tax refund and wrongful levy claims because the plaintiffs had not filed a proper and timely administrative refund claim with the IRS as mandated by 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422(a) and 6511(a), and the two-year limitations period from the levy date had passed. The court denied dismissal of the FOIA claim and granted leave to amend the petition to name the correct agency, citing the interests of justice in allowing correction of a pro se filing issue.
This case concerns plaintiffs' efforts to obtain Road Home Program benefits for a home they purchased after Hurricane Katrina, where their application was initially deemed eligible but later ruled ineligible due to ownership timing requirements, leading to an administrative appeal and eventual lawsuit against multiple defendants including in-state Quadel employees. Plaintiffs filed suit in state court alleging improper handling of their application and moved to remand after the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds. The court denied the motion for remand, adopting the magistrate judge's findings after a summary inquiry that pierced the pleadings. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs lacked any reasonable basis for recovery against the non-diverse defendants, as evidence showed only potential negligence claims that were time-barred by prescription with no indication of knowledge or participation in any alleged bonus scheme.