Deliphose v.United States Fire Insurance Company

Filing 89

RULING granting 54 Motion for Partial Summary JudgmenT,and Plaintiff's claims for punitive or exemplary damages against Cape are dismissed without prejudice. Any response to this ruling shall comply as set forth herein. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 6/4/2019. (SWE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LORENDA DELIPHOSE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS

18-39-SDD-RLB

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO.,
CAPE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,
MICHAEL J. SWARTZMILLER, ILLINOIS
UNION INSURANCE COMPANY
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment1 filed
by Defendant, Cape Environmental Management, Inc. (“Cape”). No opposition to this
motion has been filed.
Local rule 7(f) of the Middle District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in
opposition to a motion be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the motion.
In the present case, the motion by Cape was electronically filed on January 4,
2019. A review of the record shows that far more than twenty-one (21) days have elapsed
since the electronic service of this Motion, and no memorandum in opposition has been
submitted to date.
Therefore, this Motion is deemed to be unopposed and further, after reviewing the
record, the Court finds that the Motion has merit. As the Defendant-driver’s employer,

1

Rec. Doc. No. 54.

51905 
Page 1 of 4 

Cape seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim against it because it contends
that there is no employer liability for punitive damages under Louisiana Civil Code article
2315.4. Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.4 provides:
In addition to general and special damages, exemplary damages may be
awarded upon proof that the injuries on which the action is based were
caused by a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of other
by a defendant whose intoxication while operating a motor vehicle was a
cause in fact of the resulting injuries.
In Lankford v. National Carriers Inc., the Western District of Louisiana considered whether
to dismiss a claim for punitive damages against an employer on the basis that an
employer cannot be held vicariously liable for punitive damages that could be awarded
against its employee driver.2 There, the court, quoting the Louisiana Third Circuit Court
of Appeal, noted that, “[i]n Louisiana, there is a general public policy against punitive
damages; thus a fundamental tenet of our law is that punitive or other penalty damages
are not allowable unless expressly authorized by statute. Furthermore, when a statute
does authorize the imposition of punitive damages, it is subject to strict scrutiny.”3 Citing
Romero, the Lankford court also noted that Article 2315.4 is clear and “expressly provides
for punitive damages against ‘a defendant’ who recklessly or wantonly disregards the
safety of others while driving intoxicated.”4 Accordingly, the court in Lankford found that
Article 2315.4 does not allow the imposition of punitive damages against persons who
are vicariously liable such as an employer.5 The court also found that Article 2315.4 “is

2

Lankford v. National Carriers Inc., No. CIV.A. 12-01280, 2015 WL 518736, at *1 (W.D. La. Feb. 6, 2015).
Lankford, 2015 WL 518736, at *2 (quoting Romero v. Clarendon America Ins. Co., 54 So.3d 789 (La.App.
3 Cir., 2010).
4
Id. (quoting Romero, 54 So.3d 789, 791 (La.App. 3 Cir.,2010)(emphasis in original)).
5
Id. at *3.
3

51905 
Page 2 of 4 

clearly aimed at the offending person’s behavior and none other.”6
Similarly, in Benoit v. Landstar Inway, Inc., this Court recently considered whether
the defendant’s employer was vicariously liable for the punitive damages arising from the
intoxicated driver’s negligent operation of the vehicle.7 In Benoit, the plaintiff was involved
in an accident with an intoxicated driver. The plaintiff sued the intoxicated driver’s
employer for punitive and exemplary damages. Considering that “federal district courts
have consistently held that Article 2315.4 does not impose punitive or exemplary
damages on vicariously liable parties,”8 the Court found no evidence that the employer
contributed to the intoxication of the defendant-driver and thus, Louisiana law bars the
imposition of punitive damages against the employer as a matter of law.
Following that line of reasoning, Plaintiff herein has offered no evidence that Cape
contributed to the intoxication of the defendant-driver, much less opposed the instant
motion. Further, the Statement of Undisputed Facts9 is deemed admitted as
uncontroverted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment10 by Cape is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims for punitive or exemplary
damages against Cape are dismissed without prejudice.
Any response to this Ruling, which should explain the Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s deadlines, based on the appropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,

6

Id.
Id. at *2.
8
Benoit v. Landstar Inway, Inc., 2018 WL 4224896 (M.D. la. 2018) (citing Lankford, 2015 WL 518736, at
*3 (W.D. La. Feb. 6, 2015)).
9
Rec. Doc. No. 54-2.
10
Rec. Doc. No. 54.
7

51905 
Page 3 of 4 

shall be filed within fourteen (14) days and must be accompanied by an opposition
memorandum to the original Motion.
On review of the pleadings filed along with the opposition, the Court, at its
discretion, may assess costs, including attorney’s fees, against the moving party, if the
Court deems that such a motion was unnecessary had a timely opposition memorandum
been filed.11 A statement of costs conforming to L.R. 54(c) shall be submitted by all
parties desiring to be awarded costs and attorney’s fees no later than seven (7) days prior
to the hearing on the newly filed motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on June 4, 2019.

S

____________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

11

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 83.

51905 
Page 4 of 4