Jones v. International Paper Co
3:12-cv-00624
W.D. La.Mar 24, 2011Background
- Evans et al. sue International Paper and Papco for occupational hearing loss; theories include negligence, strict liability, intentional tort, fraudulent misrepresentation, and battery.
- Case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds expanded by CFCA; involves 37 named plaintiffs led by Evans.
- IP moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing Papco is dissolved, LWCA exclusivity applies, pleadings are insufficient, and claims are time-barred.
- Court declines to rely on a single dissociated affidavit about Papco’s dissolution; notes Papco’s appearances in other cases and IP’s standing to seek dismissal.
- Louisiana law governs substantive issues; federal court applies Erie principles to choice of law and prescription; LWCA exclusivity is central.
- Court analyzes accrual and prescription, applying the discovery rule (contra non valentem) to suspend prescription for most plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Papco's status as a defendant | Papco still exists and IP may defend it. | Papco is dissolved and IP cannot be liable for Papco’s liabilities. | Papco claims treated as same grounds as IP; dismissal recommended. |
| Is LWCA exclusivity applicable to NIHL claims? | NIHL may be an occupational disease outside LWCA exclusivity, or accrued before amendments. | LWCA exclusivity bars tort claims absent intentional acts. | LWCA exclusivity does not bar these claims at this stage; some theories survive. |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for intentional tort, battery, and fraud | Plaintiffs allege intentional acts and misrepresentation with some specificity. | Allegations are too conclusory for Rule 8 and 9(b) pleading standards. | Intentional tort and fraudulent misrepresentation claims are dismissed; battery likewise implicated. |
| Pleading sufficiency for negligence/strict liability | Plaintiffs allege duty, breach, causation, and damages with specificity via Exhibit A. | Claims lack precise facts necessary under Rule 8/Twombly/Iqbal at pleading stage. | Negligence and strict liability claims survive for now; discovery may flesh out details. |
| Prescription and accrual under LWCA | Discovery rule suspends prescription; last exposure occurred outside 1-year window for most | Most claims facially prescribed; discovery rule applies narrowly. | Most claims facially prescribed; discovery rule may suspend for some named plaintiffs; amendment possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings; no presumption in favor of legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must contain enough facts to raise plausible entitlement to relief)
- Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2008) (reviewing under Rule 12(b)(6); context of incorporated documents and judicial notice)
- Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (sua sponte dismissal standards; fair procedure required)
- Reeves v. Structural Preservation Systems, 731 So.2d 208 (La. 1999) (intentional act in LWCA context; negligence may be covered)
- Casto v. Fred's Painting, Inc., 692 So.2d 408 (La. 1997) (refrigerator example; failure to train does not equal intentional tort)
- Guidry v. Tobacco Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 1999) (fraud pleading generally requires specificity and intent to deceive)
- Kadlec Medical Center v. Lakeview Anesthesia, 527 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2008) (elements of misrepresentation; duty to disclose when silence or omission)
- Whitworth v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 135 So.2d 584 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1962) (occupational disease recognized under older LWCA framework)
- O'Regan v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc., 758 So.2d 124 (La. 2000) (interpretation of exclusive remedy under LWCA and causation)