The Fifth Circuit posted two unpublished opinions today and both vacated the ruling of the District Court in Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation re: Jefferson Parish. Actually, the Fifth Circuit posted one of the two unpublished opinions under two different numbers! That I realized after spending more time than I’ll confess to spending pouring over each to find the difference – before I had the presence of mind to hit the zoom and saw each had the same number (#$%&!)
This is a consolidated appeal of the district court’s dismissal of claims against Jefferson Parish, Louisiana in two cases concerning property damage from flooding that occurred as a result of the levee breaches in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.The plaintiffs-appellants, property owners in Jefferson Parish and Orleans Parish, allege that the property damage resulted from deficiencies in the New Orleans flood protection system. In their original complaints, filed on August 28, 2006, the plaintiffs-appellants named as defendants the Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District, the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, the Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, the East Jefferson Levee District, Jefferson Parish, and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
In their second amended complaints filed on April 11, 2007, the plaintiffs-appellants added the United States as a defendant. On October 12, 2007, the district court dismissed the claims against Jefferson Parish in both actions. On March 27, 2008, the district court entered final judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) with regard to those claims, and the plaintiffs-appellants appealed. This appeal solely concerns the plaintiffs-appellants’ claims against Jefferson Parish. The plaintiffs-appellants’ claims against other defendants, including the United States, are still pending in the district court. Continue reading “Fifth Circuit vacates District Court ruling in Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation”
SLABBED does love to read the Ladder – and Editilla had a big question and great maps hung on the first rung today. (thanks Editilla!)
If hanging on the Ladder, a click of the headline will take you to a set of incredible maps showing the impact of a Hurricane Katrina on other cities – Washington, D.C. for example (shown below) – and, if you keep scrolling down, you’ll find the radar map of Katrina making landfall on the Coast and see tornado after tornado on the coast (the ones that didn’t exist to insurance companies).
A lawyer by the name of Guice
has tried to play fair and be nice
but when State Farm raised her ire
she grabbed their personal voir dire
and asked the Court for ice.
If you recall State Farm puts the Court to the test in Bossier – files nine motions in limine UPDATED and the subsequent court order denying Bossier’s consent motion for an extension, reported in a recent SLABBED Daily, you may find Bossier’s motion in limine as interesting as I did – and, yes, Bossier filed just one but counsel did indeed meet the Court’s deadline!
Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record…would request that this Honorable Court rule in advance of the trial excluding from evidence the following matters and directing counsel and their witnesses to not elicit testimony, argument, or evidence, directly or indirectly, regarding the following matters…
The first matter has been around the block so often, it shouldn’t be necessary to ask the Court to once again exclude testimony, argument, or evidence, directly or indirectly, regarding Bossier’s MDA grant; and, the second, to likewise exclude mention of the the Bossier’s SBA loan. In fact, according to a footnote, Bossier attempted to avoid asking the Court to once again rule on these matter:
Counsel for Plaintiff has requested a stipulation from counsel for Defendant relating to the MDA/SBA evidence issues, in accordance with this Court’s prior rulings, in order to avoid the necessity of filing this motion. Counsel for Defendant has not responded to same. Moreover, as counsel for Plaintiff has still not received Defendant’s pre-trial inserts, it is unknown whether Defendant intends to introduce this evidence at trial. (emphasis added)
Bossier’s counsel has obviously seen Defendant’s counsel in action in other cases and the third matter the Court is asked to exclude is Continue reading “In limine in limerick – Bossier v State Farm”