Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Brown
380 F.3d 793
5th Cir.
2004
Check Treatment
Docket

George CELESTINE, Telly Gallien, Travis Gallien, and Sidney Gallien, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2004.

718

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant US Attorney, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alfred F. Boustany, II, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

In this consolidated appeal, George Celestine, Telly Gallien, Travis Gallien, and Sidney Gallien appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment based on double jeopardy grounds following a mistrial. The defendants argue that the Government intentionally engaged in prejudicial conduct, thereby forcing the defendants to move for a mistrial.

The district court granted the mistrial based on the prejudicial effect of four errors which occurred during the trial. The district court‘s finding that the Government did not intentionally goad the defendants into moving for a mistrial was not clearly erroneous. See ; . Accordingly, the district court‘s denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds is AFFIRMED.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James H. BROWN, Douglas D. Green, Sherman A. Bernard, Sr., Duane Cowart, Wayne Ducote, Gail N. McKay, Jimmy Patterson, Edward Roberson, Charles Kirsch, Jr., Chris Faser, III, and Other as Yet Undetermined Individuals Who Were Members of the Louisiana Insurance Rating Commission Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-30558.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2004.

718

Judith R. Atkinson, Thomas E. Balhoff, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Frost, Balhoff & McCollister, Daniel Joseph Balhoff, Perry, Atkinson, Balhoff, Mengis & Burns, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Christine J. Lipsey, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (“Liberty Mutual“) sued the defendants, members of the Louisiana Insurance Rating Commission (“LIRC“), arguing that the rates for worker‘s compensation insurance set by the LIRC over a period of several years were confiscatory. Liberty Mutual argues that these rates thus constitute an impermissible taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The district court granted the defendants’ motion on June 21, 2001, “[f]or the written reasons to be filed at a later date.” Written reasons were not subsequently provided.

Liberty Mutual appealed to this court, and in January of 2002, this court dismissed the appeal in an unpublished opinion. . In the unpublished opinion, this court noted the district court‘s failure to provide written reasons and questioned the finality of the district court‘s opinion. This court dismissed the appeal so that the district court would have the opportunity to issue reasons for its decision and a separate order of judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After the parties returned to the district court, the court entered another judgment without granting reasons the defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment. This time the district court did not state that written reasons would be filed at a later date. Liberty Mutual again timely appealed to this court.

Because Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56 do not require findings of fact and conclusions of law, the absence of stated reasons is not necessarily fatal. . But the parties are entitled to know the reasons upon which summary judgment was based, if for no other reason than to secure meaningful appellate review. We have many times discussed the importance of a discussion by the trial judge. .

This is especially true when, as here, an appellate court cannot ascertain which of several theories formed the basis for the entry of summary judgment. . When we have no notion of the basis for a district court‘s decision because its reasoning is vague or simply left unsaid, there is little opportunity for effective review. . In such cases, we have not hesitated to remand the case for an illumination of the court‘s analysis through some formal or informal statement of reasons. See, e.g., .

This case is factually and procedurally involved, and Liberty Mutual asserted what may be a res nova constitutional claim. In response, the defendants offered six arguments in support of their motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment. The district court granted the defendants’ motion without any statement of supporting reasons. In order to efficiently review the district court‘s decision we wish to know the grounds for its judgment.

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of permitting that court to state the reasons for its decision. The district court is directed to provide written reasons for its decision.1 We retain jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of this limited remand.

Gladys Marie GOFF Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUNDOLIER DIVISION OF AMERICAN TRADING AND PRODUCTION CORPORATION Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-10638.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 2004.

720

Summary Calendar

Gladys Marie Goff, pro se, Bardwell, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David A. Scott, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Plaintiff, Gladys Marie Goff, filed this action against defendant seeking relief for employment discrimination. The district court dismissed Goff‘s action with prejudice on February 15, 2001 and entered final judgment that same date. Goff filed her notice of appeal more than two years later on June 25, 2003. Because Goff‘s notice of appeal from the February 15, 2001 judgment was untimely this court has no jurisdiction to review that order. Goff then filed a motion for leave to reinstate her complaint on February 14, 2003. The district court treated that motion as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) F.R.C.P. and denied the motion on June 19, 2003. Goff filed a timely appeal from that order.

After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Goff‘s Rule 60(b) motion.

AFFIRMED.

Notes

1
The statement of reasons need be neither formal nor long; it must only be adequate to facilitate our review. . To the extent necessary, we anticipate requesting supplemental briefing from the parties after the district court has provided the reasons for its decision.
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.