The Louisiana legislature has passed new laws requiring employers to provide accommodations for certain pregnant employees and limiting an employer’s use of an applicant’s criminal history in hiring decisions. Both laws become effective on August 1, 2021.
Amendment to Pregnancy Accommodation Law
By Act No. 393 of the 2021 Regular Session, Louisiana’s nondiscrimination
The Texas Supreme Court recently released its anticipated opinion in Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. TRO-X, L.P., 18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 19, 2021) (“Eagle II”). The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. (“Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. TRO-X, L.P., 416 S.W.3d 137, 149 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2013, pet. denied) (“Eagle I”), TRO-X alleged that Eagle deprived TRO-X of its right to acquire certain mineral interests upon the sale of several leases in violation of their agreement. TRO-X lost that suit on appeal when the court of appeals found that TRO-X held equitable title to those interests and thus was not deprived of them. In Eagle II, TRO-X alleged that Eagle failed to pay TRO-X its share of income generated from production on the equitable interests. In response, Eagle asserted several affirmative defenses—res judicata (claim preclusion), the statute of limitations, and waiver—in a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, the court of appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, finding that Eagle did not conclusively establish any of its affirmative defenses.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Update: TRO-X Lives to Fight Another Day in Contractual Dispute over Share of Income on Production from Equitable Interests
In its recent decision in Grace Ranch, L.L.C. v. BP America Production Company, et al., No. 20-30224 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2021), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed a question that has increasingly become a sticking point in Louisiana “legacy” cases: whether claims brought under a Louisiana citizen suit
On July 15, 2020, The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion awarding damages for a violation of due process rights against a private pipeline company. Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres, More or Less, Located in St. Martin Parish, et al.[1] (“Bayou Bridge”) centers around the construction of a crude oil pipeline from the Clifton Ridge terminal in Lake Charles, Louisiana to a marketing hub in St. James, Louisiana. The 38 acres relevant to this lawsuit were in St. Martin Parish and were needed for construction of the pipeline. While Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC (“BBP”) identified approximately 470 heirs to the title of the property, it began construction on the Defendant Landowners’ (“Defendants” or “Landowners”) property in June 2018 prior to receiving servitude agreements from each person having ownership interest.
Continue Reading Louisiana Third Circuit Decision Imposes Damages for Due Process Violation on Private Company
One of the major outcomes of the 2020 Louisiana Legislative session was the passage of tort reform legislation that supporters argue will lower insurance rates and change the state’s notoriously litigious environment. The Civil Justice Reform Act of 2020, House Bill 57 (“HB57”) introduces a number of key changes:
Continue Reading Louisiana Governor Signs 2020 Tort Reform Legislation
This article was updated on April 14, 2020.
Day-to-day life has been dramatically impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and many courts in Louisiana and Texas have been forced to close or limit operations in conjunction with stay-at-home orders. A brief discussion of how COVID-19 has affected Louisiana and Texas courts is discussed here.
Continue Reading Louisiana and Texas COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Effects on State Courts
The Fifth Circuit recently issued an en banc opinion in Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.,[1] a case previously featured on the Blog, overruling “extraordinarily confused” precedent and establishing a new removal test under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). This new test is likely to have significant impact on future removals to federal court.
Continue Reading En Banc Fifth Circuit Issues Long-Awaited Ruling on Federal Officer Removal
Can targeted advertising establish general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation? The Fifth Circuit had not addressed this issue until Frank v. P N K (Lake Charles) L.L.C., No. 18-31060, 2020 WL 288213 (5th Cir. Jan. 21, 2020). But in so doing, the court may have announced a new jurisdictional test with significant ramifications for future cases.
Frank was a wrongful-death lawsuit filed in Texas state court against L’Auberge Hotel & Casino and its marketing division, PNK. Following removal to federal court, the district court granted PNK’s motion to transfer, finding PNK was not subject to general jurisdiction in Texas. The plaintiffs appealed.[1]
When is a case removable to federal court? The general rule is that removability is determined at the time a case is filed. One exception is the so-called “voluntary-involuntary” rule, which permits removal only when the plaintiff’s voluntary action in state court creates federal jurisdiction. The textbook example is the voluntary dismissal of a non-diverse defendant who settled with the plaintiff. The textbook counterexample is when the non-diverse defendant is dismissed via contested motion—an involuntary dismissal. In Hoyt v. The Lane Construction Corporation, 927 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2019), the Fifth Circuit blurred the line between these categories and expanded the cases that can be removed to federal court.