Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

by

prison_fence_razor_ribbon_1-1024x768If you are considering filing a lawsuit, there are numerous procedural requirements with which you must comply. One of these requirements is that you file your lawsuit within the required period of time after the at-issue incident occurred. While the date you file your lawsuit is typically determined by the day the court receives your petition, the following case involves a special exception that applies to prisoners in certain situations. 

On January 5, 2014, Dale Brown was arrested by the police in Gretna, Louisiana, because they believed Brown was driving a vehicle involved in an armed robbery at a convenience store. While attempting to flee while being arrested, he was shot in the leg and bitten by one of the police dogs. Brown was subsequently convicted of armed robbery and aggravated flight from the police. 

While in the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Brown filed a lawsuit accusing the police of assault, battery, and civil rights violations, including use of excessive force. He claimed he filed his lawsuit within the one-year requirement of La. C.C. art. 3492. He claimed he provided his petition to the prison officials to mail on December 30, 2014. However, the Court of Orleans Parish Civil District Court clerk stamped Brown’s petition as having been filed on January 13, 2015. 

Continue reading

by

cheerleaders_college_girls_sports-1024x682Everyone learns a lot of life lessons during high school. Sometimes these lessons are learned the hard way and result from the consequences of inappropriate behavior. This is even more the case today, where images can be quickly posted online for the public to see. In this case, a high school cheerleader found herself in an unfortunate situation after posting an inappropriate picture of herself online. 

Rebekka Arceneaux was a member of the varsity cheer team at Assumption High School. A public Snapchat account showed a picture of her with the skirt of her cheer uniform raised. Arceneaux was suspended and dismissed from the cheer team for exhibiting unacceptable behavior, violating the high school’s Cheer Discipline Policy. This discipline also resulted in her being unable to try out for the cheer team the following year.  

Arceneaux’s parents appealed her suspension, arguing that under the high school athletic handbook, she could not be prevented from trying out for the cheer team the next year because she only had a single suspension. After her parents were informed their appeal would not be considered, they filed a grievance with the Assumption Parish School Board. The school board responded Arceneaux had violated the Cheer Discipline Policy, and the resulting disciplinary actions were warranted. 

Continue reading

by

defense_gov_news_photo_526-1024x680When renting an apartment, tenants expect a safe and secure living environment. However, what happens when an accident occurs due to negligence by the apartment owner and management company? If a leaky roof in your apartment injures you, can you make a claim for your injuries? The following lawsuit answers that question. 

Kim Faciane lived in the Golden Key Apartments. After moving out, she filed a lawsuit against Golden Key, who owned the apartment complex, and Ohio Management, who managed the complex, and its insurer (collectively, the defendants). She claimed one night, while asleep in her apartment, sheetrock fell from the ceiling because of the leak. She claimed it hit her leg and caused her to slip and injure her back and neck. She claimed the defendants were liable because they kept the apartment in disrepair, did not repair the ceiling after being informed it leaked, and otherwise not properly maintaining or inspecting the apartments. 

The defendants filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that the lease had a provision that required Faciane to hold them harmless for any property or personal injury claims. They argued under La. R.S. 9:3221, Faciane was responsible for the premises’ conditions unless they were neglectful or failed to take action after she notified them in writing of a defect. They argued they did not know of any issues with the roof until after the accident occurred. Faciane countered the defendants had been notified about issues with the apartment’s ceiling at least two times before. The trial court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed Faciane’s lawsuit, who appealed.

Continue reading

by

paragraph_attorney_judge_process-682x1024Working in a courthouse may seem like an environment where the rule of law reigns supreme, but even within its hallowed halls, employees can encounter workplace issues and retaliation. In the following case, a Louisiana State Judge became embroiled in a dispute involving a law clerk’s alleged illegal and unethical behavior. As a result of this disagreement and the actions taken by her colleagues, the Judge claimed she suffered unfair treatment, false accusations, and the violation of her constitutional rights. A lawsuit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to freedom of speech. However, the courts were tasked with determining whether her claims truly amounted to violating her constitutional rights or merely involving unfriendly conduct.

Sharon Ingram Marchman was a Louisiana State Judge in Louisiana’s Fourth Judicial Court. She claimed a law clerk had been involved in illegal and unethical behavior. Marchman claimed that due to a disagreement among judges and staff at the Fourth Judicial Court on how to deal with the law clerk, she was treated unfairly by the other employees and falsely accused of disclosing confidential information. Marchman claimed this culminated with her resigning as chair of the personnel committee. 

Marchman filed a lawsuit against the law clerk, some of the other judges, and various other individuals. Marchman claimed they violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The trial court agreed Marchman had not stated a claim as she did not adequately allege any violation of her constitutional rights and dismissed her case. The trial court explained at most, Marchman’s allegations involved unfriendly or unprofessional conduct but not a violation of her constitutional rights. Marchman appealed. 

Continue reading

by

oil_oil_production_oil-1024x768Can a trial court’s approval of a settlement agreement in a property contamination lawsuit be upheld without determining remediation requirements and the deposit of funds into the court registry? This question lies at the heart of the following case, which features an appeal of the trial court’s judgment approving a settlement agreement regarding property contamination caused by historic oil and gas operations. The appeal raises issues of statutory interpretation and whether the trial court erred in its application of the law. The resolution of this question has significant implications for the approval process of settlement agreements in similar cases governed by Act 312.

In this case, Certain Insurers appealed the trial court’s approval of a settlement agreement in a property contamination lawsuit. The insurers raised two issues for the court to decide: (1) whether the trial court erred by not determining whether remediation was required before approving the settlement, and (2) if remediation was necessary, whether the court erred by not ordering the deposit of funds into the court registry.

The litigation involved historic oil and gas operations in Jefferson Davis Parish, and the plaintiffs sued Riceland and BP for damages and remediation. Riceland, in turn, filed a third-party demand against Certain Insurers seeking coverage under applicable insurance policies. After years of litigation, the plaintiffs, BP, and Riceland reached a compromise to resolve all claims. The settlement agreement included provisions for remediation by state regulatory standards, and Riceland assigned its rights against Certain Insurers to the plaintiffs.

Continue reading

by

building_hospital_within_931281-1024x683Amid the potential chaos and life-or-death scenarios in a hospital emergency room, “negligent credentialing” might not immediately come to mind. It’s understandable; after all, numerous nightmare scenarios occupy our thoughts. However, negligent credentialing is an incredibly significant matter that hospitals face regularly.

So what is “negligent credentialing”? It all comes down to whether your doctor has the legitimate credentials to practice medicine at that hospital.

Imagine a chaotic life-or-death situation where someone you love has been rushed into the ER. Your first thought isn’t going to be, “Hm, I wonder if this doctor is board certified?” It’s assumed that if someone’s doing a professional job, they’re qualified to do it. You trust the mechanic changing your car’s oil knows what they’re doing, right? Or that your kid’s teacher has the right qualifications to teach. And your dentist—you’re pretty sure they’re qualified and accredited to poke around your mouth.

Continue reading

by

taiwan_shilin_district_court-1024x768Racial discrimination in the workplace is a pressing issue that demands attention and action within our legal system. However, bringing a claim of racial discrimination or a hostile work environment requires the ability to substantiate crucial factors. The following case highlights the significance of providing essential evidence when pursuing racial discrimination or hostile work environment claims.

 Bobby Whitlock was terminated by his Monroe employer, Lazer Spot, Inc. after it claimed he left the vicinity of a loading dock while the light remained red. Next, Whitlock filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Two years later, Whitlock, who is African American, filed a claim against Lazer Spot, Inc., alleging both a hostile work environment and racial discrimination. Lazer Spot, Inc. then filed to dismiss Whitlock’s motion, arguing that his challenges did not state a claim. Next, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted Lazer Spot, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and found Whitlock did not state a claim for either his discriminatory discharge allegation or his hostile work environment complaint. This appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal follows.   

To be successful with a motion to dismiss claim, the Court of Appeal found, under law, that a complaint has to have adequate factual matter to bring a claim of relief that is facially plausible, including when a plaintiff pleads facts that permits the court to reasonably infer the defendant was liable for the alleged misconduct. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly. 

Continue reading

by

table_wood_record_notebook-1024x681The 1985 murder of Denise Porter by stabbing was a horrific tragedy with life-altering ramifications for her husband, Joel, a Louisiana attorney. It also provides an example of how records from a criminal investigation can and cannot be requested.

In Louisiana, immediate family members (i.e., the surviving spouse, children, grandchildren, or siblings) of a person who died of unnatural causes are entitled to obtain, after ten years has elapsed, unlimited access to investigative records pertaining to the death. La. R.S. 44:3(F).

While the statute provides a straightforward answer to who can obtain these records and when they can be requested, the element of how the information can be accessed created complications for Joel Porter. Record requests must accord with the limitations defined in other applicable laws, for example, Louisiana Code of Evidence, articles 507 and 508, explaining how attorneys can be approached about privileged information.

Continue reading

by

office_contract_computer_phone-1024x683Entering into a contract entails an expectation that both parties will fulfill their respective obligations. However, what transpires when one party complies while the other fails to uphold its promises? This case delves into the repercussions of such a scenario, shedding light on the importance of seeking legal remedies to enforce contractual agreements.

Dr. Kenneth Gowland was killed in a car accident in Bernard Parish, Louisiana. His widow, Connie Gowland, retained Wootan & Saunders to handle her husband’s succession and an uninsured motorist claim against his insurer on behalf of her and their children. Wootan & Saunders investigated the accident. It simultaneously performed work for certain Louisiana agencies and departments and received payments from the Office of Risk Management, which is responsible for tort claims brought against Louisiana state agencies under La. R.S. 39:1535. Because of its lack of experience with personal injury lawsuits, Wootan & Saunders selected Glenn Diaz to handle Gowland’s litigation. 

Diaz and Gowland signed a contingent fee contract and a fee-splitting agreement with Wootan & Saunders. Under the fee agreement, Wootan & Saunders would receive a portion of fees based on work it had performed and its continuous contact with the Gowlands. Wootan & Saunders did not inform Diaz it was doing work for Louisiana state agencies.

Continue reading

by

agree_agreement_asian_black-1024x683If you sign a settlement agreement, you might feel relieved that you no longer have to go to trial. After all, settlements are generally thought to save you the time and expense of going to trial. But what happens if the other side fails to pay you the settlement funds by the terms of the settlement agreement?

Rapheal Guillory was injured while working at R&R Construction. He initially received workers’ compensation benefits, but they were eventually terminated. After his benefits were terminated, he filed a lawsuit against R&R, seeking his benefits, penalties, and attorney fees. Before the case went to trial, the parties settled. Under the settlement agreement, R&R agreed to pay Guillory a lump sum payment for the settlement amount by a set date. The workers’ compensation judge approved the settlement agreement. 

After the agreed-upon date for R&R to pay Guillory, R&R’s attorney delivered to Guillory’s attorney two checks, a release, and dismissal. However, the checks included language that Guillory claimed imposed improper conditions on receiving the settlement funds that were not part of their settlement agreement. Later, R&R paid the required expenses, but the check also included conditional language. 

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 – 2024, Berniard Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design