On May 30, 2007, United States District Judge Stanwood R Duval dismissed a class action lawsuit by residents of South Louisiana claiming damages from Hurricane Katrina. The court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with the federal government before filing their Federal Tort Claims Act suit. The lawsuit accused the federal government of negligently…

The purpose of due diligence in the acquisition of licensing of intellectual property assets (namely patents and copyrights) is to give a buyer an opportunity to investigate and evaluate the asset concerned in some detail. More particularly, due diligence involving patens and copyrights can present ownership issues if the author/inventor is or was married and resides in a community property state. Whatever level of diligence is required for the particular transaction, the buyer should consider inquiring as to the current and past marital status of the inventor/author of the intellectual property if the inventor/author is either the seller; a direct owner of the seller; or in some cases, even a past owner of the intellectual property.

On Thursday May 31, 2007, U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the Kansas District Court denied the motions to dismiss of PepsiCo Inc. and privately held Sunny Delight Beverages Co. and Rockstar Inc. in litigation related to possible benzene exposure from drinking certain of the defendants’ soft drinks.

The plaintiffs claim that when certain…

Any industry manufacturing or even using products with even trace levels of benzene should be aware of the growing trend among trial attorneys to bring benzene exposure claims. It may be nearing the time for companies to undertake aggressive efforts to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to these types of claims
Several recent blogosphere entries suggest that three…

On June 1, 2007, the Louisiana Legislature unanimously passed the state’s first comprehensive master plan for coastal restoration and hurricane protection. In response, the governor has asked the legislature to commit $200 million of the state’s surplus to the coastal fund and allow for the securitization of the tobacco settlement funds, of which 20% is constitutionally dedicated to the coastal fund. The new master plan is entitled, “Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection: Louisiana’s Comprehensive Plan for a Sustainable Coast.”

Baton Rouge, Louisiana – September 8, 2006 – Fifteen partners from Baton Rouge-based Kean Miller Hawthorne D’Armond McCowan & Jarman (Kean Miller) will be listed in the 2007 edition of The Best Lawyers in America (Woodward White, Inc.). Published biennially since 1983, The Best Lawyers in America is widely regarded as an important referral guide to the legal profession in the United States. The list is compiled through an exhaustive peer-review survey in which thousands of the top lawyers in the U.S. confidentially evaluate their professional peers.

The referral guide is subscribed to by more than 4,000 of the leading law firms in the U.S. and abroad, and by more than 1,000 of the world’s largest corporations. Because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, Best Lawyers is a reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals.

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (“LDEQ”) recently instituted a pilot program of making its Electronic Document Management System (“EDMS”) available on the internet for a six-month trial period. The EDMS is the electronic repository of official records that have been created or received by LDEQ.  All documents that are defined as “public records,” including e-mail, either created or received by any LDEQ personnel are placed in the EDMS and can be searched on the internet through LDEQ’s website. All public documents that have not been labeled as confidential pursuant to LDEQ’s confidentiality statute, La. R.S. 30:2030, and that are dated July 1, 2005 or later are part of the pilot. The only exception is documents concerning radiation media as LDEQ has asserted confidentiality of these pursuant to its authority to keep potentially sensitive national security information as confidential.

Effective Date: Upon signature of the governor which occurred on June 8, 2006.

Limitation On Some Matters: Does not apply to a case in which the court, on or before March 27, 2006 (first day of the legislative session), has issued or signed an order setting the case for trial, regardless if such trial date is continued.

Opt-in Provision: A party who filed a judicial demand has the right to come under S.B. 655 and can do so by filing a notice in the court where the case is pending, a notice of the exercise of such right within 60 days of the effective date of the Act.

Remediation Monies: Monies for remediation projects awarded shall be placed in the registry of the court and the remediation plan shall be implemented under the supervision of the agency with the court maintaining supervisory jurisdiction until plan completed. Monies may be funded incrementally. Any leftover funds are returned to the party who paid the money into the registry of the court. The money does not go to the landowner, but into the remediation project. Note that an award will include monies for investigation and remediation.

“Feasible Plan:” The definition of “feasible plan” for a remediation to be performed under the Act means the most reasonable plan which addresses “environmental damage” (see definition below) in compliance with the Constitution to protect the environment, public health, safety and welfare, and is in compliance with the specific relevant and applicable standards and regulations promulgated by a state agency in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act in effect at the time of clean up to remediate contamination resulting from oilfield or exploration and production operations or waste.

It is common for an employer to require an employee to provide a medical release or to submit to a medical examination before returning to work after a sickness or medical leave. Some employees contend the time it takes to complete this process amounts to involuntary FMLA leave and they should receive all benefits of the Act related to such leave. In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, the court recognized that an employer can place an employee on “involuntary” FMLA leave if the employee has provided the employer with notice of the employee’s “serious health condition,” and the involuntary nature of the leave does not deprive the employee of rights under the Act.    Willis v. Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., 2006 WL 827359 (5th Cir. March 31, 2006).

The facts in Willis are interesting. Willis was a Senior Account Manager with Coca Cola Enterprises. On a Monday, in May 2003, she called her supervisor and told him she would not be at work that day because she was sick. In the same conversation, she told her supervisor she was pregnant, but she did not specifically tell her supervisor she was sick because of her pregnancy.