Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all wrongful death beneficiaries, filed a product liability and wrongful death action against defendants. At issue on appeal was whether the Supreme Court's recent decision in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro rendered the court's stream-of-commerce approach to personal jurisdiction improper. The court found that the application of the stream-of-commerce approach in this case did not run afoul of McIntyre's narrow holding and, therefore, affirmed the district court's interlocutory order finding personal jurisdiction and denying dismissal. View "Ainsworth v. Moffett Engineering, Ltd." on Justia Law

This matter arose from the multidistrict litigation (MDL) related to allegations that the Emergency Housing Units (EHUs) provided by FEMA in Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita contained materials which emitted dangerous levels of formaldehyde. This appeal involved only the Louisiana plaintiffs. The court held that the district court did not err in holding that plaintiffs' negligence claims regarding the use of EHUs were barred by the discretionary-function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims that FEMA negligently responded to formaldehyde complaints under the Louisiana Good Samaritan provision of the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 29:733:1. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' gross negligence claim under the misrepresentation exception to the FTCA. View "In Re: FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Lit." on Justia Law

While serving time in the county jail, plaintiff labored in a county work program under the sheriff's supervision. At issue was whether plaintiff was covered under the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Act (MWCA), Mississippi Code 47-5-417, -567, and thus was entitled to compensation benefits for injuries sustained while he was on work detail. The county and the medical corporation that treated plaintiff sought reimbursement of medical expenses from the Mississippi Public Entities Workers' Compensation Trust (MPE), the provider of workers' compensation insurance from the county. The court concluded as a matter of law that the county had no enforceable contract to hire plaintiff, a prerequisite of coverage, and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of MPE. View "Vuncannon, et al v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Transocean to recover maintenance and cure for a back injury allegedly sustained on the job. The district court awarded summary judgment to Transocean on its counterclaim to recover benefits it already paid to plaintiff, concluding that Transocean's successful McCorpen v. Central Gulf Steamship Corp. defense automatically established its right to restitution - a right of action never before recognized in maritime law. The court concluded that, though most courts have accepted McCorpen, Transocean's attempt to invoke the case as an affirmative right of recovery finds virtually no support, and the court was not inclined to accede. Accordingly, the court rejected Transocean's claim, and reversed and remanded the district court's judgment. View "Boudreaux v. Transocean Deepwater, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in Texas state court seeking relief under general maritime law, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950, and Texas tort law. Plaintiff claimed that he suffered severe emotional distress from witnessing his friend's death as a result of an accident on a jack-up rig attached to the Outer Continental Shelf. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for remand and granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the suit was properly removed to federal court under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act's, 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356, grant of original federal question jurisdiction, regardless of whether maritime law provided the substantive rule of decision, and regardless of the citizenship of the parties. Because plaintiff could not show a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his claims under either Texas or maritime law, the court affirmed the district court's orders denying remand and granting summary judgment to defendants. View "Barker, Jr. v. Hercules Offshore, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, struck by an Amtrak train across railroad tracks owned and maintained by Illinois Central, claimed that Illinois Central failed to signalize the crossing properly. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding an expert's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court also held that Illinois Central demonstrated that the crossing at issue was not "unusually dangerous" as a matter of Mississippi law. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Illinois Central. View "Brown v. Illinois Central Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed as a technician by Aerotek, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Miller and Aerotek on her negligent hiring claim under Mississippi law. Plaintiff alleged that she was forcibly raped by an employee of Aerotek. The court held that Mississippi law did not impose a duty on employers to conduct criminal background checks, at least within the factual circumstances of this case; non-compliance with internal corporate hiring policies was probative of, but not dispositive of, evidence of negligence under Mississippi law; and there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Miller and Aerotek should have known of the employee's violent propensity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keen v. Robertson, et al" on Justia Law

Freeport and Brand Energy were named defendants in a personal injury suit in Texas state court. Freeport sought defense and indemnity from ACE, its insured, in the state court proceedings under Brand Energy's insurance policy with ACE. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of ACE, holding that it had no duty to defend Freeport in the state court proceedings because Freeport was not covered as an additional insurer under Brand Energy's insurance policy with respect to the underlying state court claims. The court remanded for a determination of whether ACE had a duty to indemnify Freeport for the cost of its settlement in the state court proceedings. View "ACE American Ins. Co. v. Freeport Welding & Fabricating" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Mississippi citizen, brought suit against the driver of a rental car, her passengers, and an Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a traffic accident. Defendants who are individuals are foreign nationals, believed to be from Great Britain. Various attempts at service were made but all failed. After granting two extensions of time, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of service. At issue was the timing requirement Rule 4 placed on foreign service of process. The court adopted a flexible due-diligence standard. The court also concluded that because Mississippi's statute of limitations likely barred refiling, this suit should not have been dismissed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Lozano v. Bosdet, et al." on Justia Law

A jury found defendant liable to plaintiff under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.54, for injuries caused by a defect that rendered one of its stucco pumps unreasonably dangerous. The central disputes on appeal were whether the theories offered by plaintiff's experts met the standards for scientific reliability under the Federal Rules of Evidence and whether the jury's imposition of liability for a defect in "construction or composition" of the pump could stand. The court held that none of the expert evidence was improperly admitted and that there was no basis to set aside the jury's finding of a defect under Section 9:2800.55. The court considered the comparative fault challenges, plaintiff's Rule 50 motion on a design defect under Section 9:2800.56, and finally, explained why the increase in the medical award was appropriate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict as modified by the district court. View "Roman v. Western Manufacturing, Inc." on Justia Law