General Litigation

Subscribe to General Litigation via RSS

Even for a “small company,” the failure to comply with discovery obligations to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) can be dangerous.  The case of Perez v. Vezer Industrial Professionals, Inc. 2011 WL 5975854 (E.D. Cal. 2011) involved a truck accident, but the lawsuit quickly reached the point where the plaintiff sought a default judgment against…

Louisiana protects corporate directors and officers from liability to shareholders or others when they make decisions in good faith and reasonably believe that their decisions are in the best interest of the organization. This principal, called the “business judgment rule,” gives officers and directors the freedom to take risks and to make decisions without wondering…

Kean Miller is pleased to announce the release of the ninth edition of the Practical Digest of Louisiana Class Action Decisions. The digest is produced by Charles S. McCowan, Jr., Bradley C. Myers, Gerald E. Meunier (Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer), and Thomas F. Daley (District Attorney of the 40th Judicial District).…

In The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities LLC, et al., 685 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), Judge Scheindlin—author of the renowned Zubulake decisions—further develops the boundaries of discovery duties in a lengthy opinion. Although the opinion does not require parties to meet a standard of perfection during discovery, the opinion serves as an important guide that offers concrete rules and potentially burdensome standards that attorneys should heed to avoid sanction.

Writing systematically, Scheindlin initially frames the fundamental concepts underlying the nature and scope of a party’s duty to preserve, collect, review, and produce requested records during discovery:

The first [critical issue] is plaintiffs’ level of culpability-that is, was their conduct of discovery acceptable or was it negligent, grossly negligent, or willful. The second is the interplay between the duty to preserve evidence and the spoliation of evidence. The third is which party should bear the burden of proving that evidence has been lost or destroyed and the consequences resulting from that loss. And the fourth is the appropriate remedy for the harm caused by the spoliation. (1)
Continue Reading Federal Judge Sheds Light on Boundaries of Discovery Duties

The application of corporate veil piercing theories to limited liability companies is still in its early stages in Louisiana jurisprudence. In Hollowell v. Orleans Regional Hosp. LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit became the first court applying Louisiana law to pierce the veil of a Louisiana limited liability company on an “alter ego basis,” adopting from corporate veil piercing jurisprudence a non-exhaustive list of factors, namely: 1) commingling of corporate and shareholder funds; 2) failure to follow statutory formalities for incorporating and transacting corporate affairs; 3) undercapitalization; 4) failure to provide separate bank accounts and bookkeeping records; and 5) failure to hold regular shareholder and director meetings. 217 F.3d 379, 385-386 (5th Cir. 7/18/00); citing Riggins v. Dixie Shoring Co., 590 So.2d 1164, 1168 (La. 1991). The court emphasized that the inquiry is in fact a “totality of the circumstances” test, and “courts are not limited to these five factors when invoking the alter ego doctrine.” Id., at 387, citing Riggins, at 1168.
Continue Reading Piercing the Veil of an LLC – The Fourth Circuit Weighs In

In an arbitration, the parties agree to hire one or more neutral third parties to hear the dispute and issue a ruling.  The parties further agree to abide by that ruling.  If one party fails to do so, the ruling can be enforced by a court of law just as if an actual judgment had been entered.  Some suggest the process is less costly and more efficient than litigation; however, significant rights can be lost under the guise of so called legal efficiency.
Continue Reading Beware: Arbitration

Electronic Discovery, or “E-Discovery”, is not considered the “novel issue” it once was. However, E-Discovery still presents problems that litigants and courts struggle with. Below is a summary of recent Louisiana Federal Court opinions dealing with the issues surrounding E-Discovery.

In Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 184889 (W.D. La. Jan. 22, 2007), the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel. In an unfair competition and trade secret theft action, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a former employee, had stolen various data files. Plaintiff had unsuccessfully requested production of defendant’s laptop and desktop. The Court granted the motion to compel the defendant to produce these two items because they were the most likely places that the data files would be located. The Court did institute protective measures so as to prevent the disclosure of any irrelevant or personal information.Continue Reading Recent Developments in E-Discovery in Louisiana

The United States Supreme Court recently resolved conflicts among the Circuit Courts about the citizenship of a corporation for determining diversity of citizenship jurisdiction (1). This will allow corporations to analyze with more predictable results whether to remove a case to federal court. In Hertz Corp. v. Friend, et al, No. 08-1107 (February 23, 2010) (a unanimous decision, which is unusual in and of itself), the Court decided that when determining a corporation’s citizenship for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the “principal place of business” of the corporation is “the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities”—something that courts have referred to as the “nerve center” of the corporation.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of a Corporation’s “Principal Place of Business”

On Friday, April 9, 2010, the Louisiana Supreme Court (1) reversed the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Cimarex Energy Co. v. Mauboules (2), in which the Circuit Court held that

(1) a royalty interest vendors’ oral assertion to a mineral lessee that the royalty interest vendee fraudulently inserted a prescription interruption provision in the royalty deed, and that therefore the royalty interest had reverted back to the vendors, is not a reasonable basis for the mineral lessee to initiate a concursus proceeding to determine the ownership of royalty payments because the innocent third party purchaser of the royalty interests is protected by the public records doctrine; and

(2) the mineral lessee is liable not only for the royalties paid into the registry of the court, but also for an additional sum equal to double the amount of royalties paid into the registry of the court, as damages.

The Third Circuit decision represented a gross departure from well-established Louisiana law relating to concursus proceedings, upon which the oil and gas industry, and mineral royalty payors in particular, have long relied in order to avoid the risk of multiple liability and the vexation of multiple lawsuits, as well as to avoid a penalty for nonpayment of royalties pursuant to Mineral Code provisions allowing a penalty under certain circumstances.Continue Reading Louisiana Supreme Court Reaffirms Availability of Concursus Procedure for Royalty Payors, But Leaves Questions Concerning Provisions of the Mineral Code Governing Claims for Failure to Pay Royalties Unanswered