Motion to dismiss granted: dismissing alleged civil rights violations against housing complex operator and its employees.

Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court alleging civil rights violations against the operator of a public housing complex and its employees when operator attempted to evict plaintiffs for multiple breaches of the lease agreement.  Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction granted: dismissing South African steel manufacturer.

Federal district court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed on behalf of a South African steel manufacturer in a suit for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff's truck allegedly flipped onto its side when the cargo of steel in the shipping container on the truck shifted.  Plaintiff alleged that steel manufacturer negligently loaded the container.  Court found that plaintiff did not establish a prima facie  case that steel manufacturer was subject to specific jurisdiction in Louisiana.  Similarly, the court found that the plaintiff failed to show that the South African manufacturer had “continuous and systematic” contacts with Louisiana sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction.

Judgment of dismissal following bench trial.

Subrogation case by workers' compensation carrier against boiler inspector and his employer arising from personal injuries sustained by laundromat employee while observing the blow-down maintenance of a boiler performed by the laundromat's owner.  Court found that the plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proving that the actions of the boiler inspector expanded the statutorily defined duty of a boiler inspector or supplanted the laundromat's duty to provide a safe workplace for its employees.  Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

Peremptory exception of prescription granted: dismissing claims against following vehicle in a rear-end collision.

Court granted peremptory exception of prescription, finding that the plaintiff's claims against the insured-following driver were time-barred.  Court found as dispositive evidence the still photographs of time-stamped cellular phone video taken by the insured-following driver offered at the trial of the exception.

Motion for summary judgment granted: no coverage under equipment breakdown policy.

Motion for summary judgment granted in favor of equipment breakdown insurer.  Court found that Hurricane Katrina claim by an apartment operator for replacement of a large, commercial A/C unit should be dismissed because the insured "replaced the chiller in question, not because the motor actually failed or burned out due to power surges resulting from Hurricane Katrina, but instead as 'preventive maintenance' because the chiller might fail or burn out at some point in the future if not repaired, and such a proactive maintenance decision does not constitute an 'accident' for purposes of equipment breakdown coverage under the policy in question."

Tyrone Saylor v. Villcar Realty, L.L.C. and Carter-Downing Apartments, Inc., 999 So.2d 61 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008)

Tenant suffered personal injuries when, after a fire broke out in his apartment, he jumped from a second-story window. Tenant filed suit against the apartment complex owner, Villcar Realty, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The district court granted Villcar's exception of prescription, finding that tenant's action sounded in tort only and that the doctrine of contra non valentem did not apply. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling, agreeing that the action was delictual and the evidence did not support application of contra non valentem.

Supreme Services and Specialty Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, Inc., 958 So.2d 634(La. 2007)

On May 22, 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated a district court’s ruling in favor of AXA Insurance Company, holding that, according to the plain language of the “work product” exclusions of a Commercial General Liability Policy, there is no coverage for damage to a concrete slab that must be restored, repaired, or replaced because of the defective work, or the defective product, of a contractor and its subcontractors.