David et al v. Signal InternationaL LLC et al

Filing 2098

ORDER denying 1847 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Principal-Agent Relationships. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 1/7/2015. (tsf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KURIAN DAVID, et al.
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION "E"

LAKSHMANAN PONNAYAN ACHARI, et al.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 13-6218
(c/w 13-6219, 13-6220,
13-6221, 14-732, 141818)

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION "E"

Applies To:
David v. Signal
(No. 08-1220)

1

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain PrincipalAgent Relationships filed by Plaintiffs.1 Plaintiffs seek an order finding that the Pol
Defendants, the Dewan Defendants, and the Burnett Defendants are agents of Signal.
Plaintiffs seek to hold Signal liable for the actions of its putative agents under the
doctrines of actual authority (express or implied), apparent authority, and ratification.
As the Mississippi Supreme Court has recognized,2 "the determination of whether an
agency relationship exists is a question of fact for the jury."3 So too are the questions of
whether apparent authority exists and whether a principal has ratified the conduct of its
agent.4 Having reviewed the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to
Signal, the Court finds there are genuine issues of material fact that must be decided by
the jury.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 7th day of January, 2015.
______________________ _________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

R. Doc. 1847.
The Court previously ruled that Mississippi law governs all issues of agency in this case. See R. Doc.
2088.
3 Miller v. R.B. Wall Oil Co., 970 So. 2d 127, 132 (Miss. 2007).
4 See Alexander v. Tri-Cnty. Coop. (AAL), 609 So. 2d 401, 403 (Miss. 1992) ("This Court has clearly stated
that apparent authority is an issue of fact."); Covington v. Butler, 242 So. 2d 444, 447 (Miss. 1970)
("[T]he question whether [the principal] ratified the action of his agent . . . [is] a question of fact . . . .").
1

2

2