United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
S. VANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is defendants Rogers-Premier Enterprises,
LLC's, and Liberty Insurance Corporation's motion to
dismiss plaintiff Sean Chiasson's
complaint. Because prescription has not been
interrupted, the Court grants the motion.
October 25, 2017, the plaintiff, Sean Chiasson, was covering
a load of cargo in a commercial trailer with plastic sheeting
at National Gypsum Services Company on behalf of his
employer, Rogers-Premier Enterprises, LLC. While covering
the cargo, the plaintiff slipped and fell to the ground,
resulting in injury to his arm and back. Less than five
months after the accident, on March 15, 2018, the plaintiff
filed suit against National Gypsum, as well as National
Gypsum's insurer. Chiasson and the defendants in the earlier
suit settled, and the suit was dismissed on March 7,
March 19, 2019, twelve days after the earlier suit was
dismissed, the plaintiff filed this action against his
employer at the time of the injury, Rogers-Premier, as well
as its insurer, Liberty Insurance. The Plaintiff attached to
his complaint a certificate in compliance with Local Rule 3.1
noting that this suit and the earlier suit “both arise
out of a fall resulting from the intentional and negligent
conduct of National Gypsum (NGC) and the intentional conduct
of Rogers-Premier Enterprises, LLC.” The defendants
moved to dismiss Chiasson's claims, arguing that the
claims are time-barred under Louisiana law, because the
complaint was filed more than one year after the
injury. Chiasson contends that the earlier suit
interrupted the prescription period against Rogers-Premier
and Liberty Insurance, as they are solidarily or jointly
liable with National Gypsum.
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6), the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as
true and view the facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196
(5th Cir. 1996). The Court must resolve doubts as to the
sufficiency of the claim in the plaintiff's favor.
Vulcan Materials Co. v. City of Tehuacana, 238 F.3d
382, 387 (5th Cir. 2001). But to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, a party must plead “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The claim
must be dismissed if there are insufficient factual
allegations to raise the right to relief above the
speculative level, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, or if
it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is
an insuperable bar to relief, Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. 199, 215 (2007). The Court is not bound to accept as
true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must limit its review to the
contents of the pleadings, including attachments thereto.
Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Mktg.
Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014). The Court may
also consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss or an
opposition to that motion when the documents are referred to
in the pleadings and are central to a plaintiff's claims.
it is evident from the pleadings that the action is
time-barred, and the pleadings fail to raise some basis for
tolling or the like, the Court may dismiss a claim under Rule
12(b)(6). Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d
359, 366 (5th Cir. 2003). “Ordinarily, the party
pleading prescription bears the burden of proving that the
plaintiff's claims have prescribed.” Terrebonne
Par. Sch. Bd. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 310 F.3d 870, 878 (5th
Cir. 2002). But, once prescription is evident from the
pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate
that prescription was either suspended or interrupted.
Id.; see also In re Med. Review Panel for Claim
of Moses, 788 So.2d 1173, 1177 (La. 2001).
the basis of federal jurisdiction is diversity of
citizenship, a federal court applies the statute of
limitations that the forum state would apply. Huss v.
Gayden, 571 F.3d 442, 449-50 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing
Guar. Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109-10
(1945)). Therefore, as both parties recognize, Louisiana
prescription law applies to determine whether the
plaintiff's claims against the defendants are
tort claim is a delictual action, and therefore the
prescriptive period is one year. La. Civ. Code. art. 3492.
The prescriptive period begins to run “from the day the
injury or damage is sustained.” Id. Here, the
plaintiff was injured on October 25, 2017. Therefore,
his one-year prescriptive period began to run on that date
and would expire on October 26, 2018, unless the prescriptive
period was suspended, interrupted, or otherwise tolled.
Because the plaintiff filed this suit ...