Ragusa v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (2022)

Our plain-English summary of Ragusa v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, March 7, 2022).

Frank Ragusa, Jr. sued in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, state court over asbestos exposure. He faces a terminal diagnosis of mesothelioma. Huntington Ingalls removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. The opinion does not describe where or how Ragusa was exposed. He asked the federal court for a status conference and a preferential, expedited trial date, relying on a Louisiana state rule that gives scheduling preference to people unlikely to survive six months. The court denied the motion. It said the state rule does not bind a federal court, and that a federal court must apply federal procedural rules in a case removed under the federal officer statute. It found no good cause to expedite. The case had only recently been removed, and the defendants needed more time for discovery. An expedited trial would prejudice them. The court said it was sympathetic to Ragusa and relied on a similar Middle District of Louisiana decision, McAllister v. McDermott.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
• Decided: March 7, 2022
• Docket: Civil Action No. 21-1971
• Stage: Other
• State: Louisiana

Outcome. The court denied plaintiff Frank Ragusa's motion for a preferential trial setting, ruling for defendant Huntington Ingalls because an expedited trial would not allow enough time for discovery and preparation.

What the court held. A state-law preference for terminally ill litigants does not bind a federal court in a case removed under the federal officer removal statute. Good cause for an expedited trial was not shown where defendants needed time for discovery and would be prejudiced.

Issues decided: Government Contractor Defense and Removal, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Frank P. Ragusa, Jr.: mesothelioma

The defendants

• Huntington Ingalls, Inc.
• Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (insurer)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (March 8, 2023). The court granted LIGA's summary judgment motion as to coverage of Avondale itself, because Avondale is a high net worth insured, and denied it without prejudice as to coverage of Avondale's executive officers.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (March 20, 2023). The court granted summary judgment to Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and to Travelers as insurer of Avondale's alleged executive officers, dismissing Ragusa's negligence and intentional tort claims as barred by the LHWCA.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (March 22, 2023). The court granted Avondale's motion for partial summary judgment on strict liability, direct negligence and intentional tort claims for the 1989 exposures, and denied it on vicarious liability, so Ragusa lost on three theories and won on one.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (March 22, 2023). The court granted plaintiff Frank Ragusa Jr.'s motion for summary judgment that he has mesothelioma and that asbestos caused it, over opposition from Amdura, Syngenta, Rubicon and FMC.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (March 27, 2023). The court denied plaintiff Frank Ragusa's motion to remand the case to state court, keeping it in federal court against Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and the other defendants.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (March 29, 2023). The court denied all nine summary judgment motions by premises owners and product companies, so Ragusa's asbestos claims against Pharmacia, Legacy Vulcan, Syngenta, Marathon, Murphy Oil, International Paper, Westinghouse and Riley Power continue.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (March 30, 2023). The court denied the defendants' Daubert motion to exclude plaintiff Frank Ragusa's experts Dr. Kraus and Dr. Landreneau, so plaintiff's specific-causation testimony on his mesothelioma may be presented at trial.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (March 31, 2023). The court granted the premises-owner defendants' partial summary judgment on strict liability under former article 2317 for crane exposures in 1996 or earlier, and denied it for any later years; Ragusa lost on the earlier years.
• Ragusa v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (October 8, 2024). The court granted the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Ragusa family's wrongful death claims as not timely "covered claims"; LIGA won and the plaintiffs lost on those claims.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

FRANK P. RAGUSA, JR.

v.

LOUISIANA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL., SECTION: "J"(5).

Civil Action No. 21-1971.

March 7, 2022.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

ORDER & REASONS

CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference and Trial Setting (Rec. Doc. 100) filed by Plaintiff, Frank P. Ragusa, Jr. ("Plaintiff"). Defendant, Huntington Ingalls, Inc. ("Defendant"), oppose the motion (Rec. Doc. 104). Having considered the motion and memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises out of asbestos exposure, where Plaintiff faces a terminal diagnosis of mesothelioma. (Rec. Doc. 100, at 1). On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Defendant subsequently removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. In light of Plaintiff's diagnosis, Plaintiff now moves to set a preferential trial date. Defendant opposes an expedited trial setting because of insufficient time to prepare for trial. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has discretion to "determine the order in which civil actions are heard and determined, except that the court shall expedite the consideration of any action" for good cause. 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a). Good cause is shown under § 1657 "if a right under the Constitution of the United States or a Federal Statute. . . would be maintained in a factual context that indicates that a request for expedited consideration has merit."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) further provides that "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In making scheduling decisions, the Court's "judgment range is exceedingly wide," for it "must consider not only the facts of the particular case but also all of the demands on counsel's time and the court's." HC Gun & Knife Shows, Inc. v. City of Houston, 201 F.3d 544, 549-50 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Versai Mgmt. Corp. v. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co., 597 F.3d 729, 740 (5th Cir. 2010).

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to expedite trial in this matter. Plaintiff relies on La. Code Civ. Pro. art 1573:

The court shall give preference in scheduling upon the motion of any party to the action who presents to the court documentation to establish that the party has reached the age of seventy years or who presents to the court medical documentation that the party suffers from an illness or condition because of which he is not likely to survive beyond six months, if the court finds that the interests of justice will be served by granting such preference.

La. Code. Civ. Pro. art. 1573. There is no federal counterpart to this rule, but because Plaintiff suffers from terminal mesothelioma, he maintains that he is entitled to an expedited trial in state court. However, Article 1573 is not binding on

this court, and because the case was removed under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the rules of federal procedure must apply. Cortez v. Lamorak Ins., Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95603, at [*15] (E.D. La. May 20, 2021). In McAllister v. McDermott, Inc., Plaintiff filed for an expedited trial setting due to his worsening mesothelioma. McAllister v. McDermott, Inc., etal., No. 18-361, at [*1] (M.D. La. July 31, 2018). The court denied Plaintiff's motion, because: it would be highly prejudicial to all Defendants, considering what remains to be accomplished through discovery, to force them to go to trial in a matter of months. . . while the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's failing health, the Court is unable to provide Plaintiff with an expedited trial date. . . "Many litigants have compelling reasons to desire a speedy remedy, however, and the Court's schedule does not permit

expedited consideration of all these cases."

Id. at [*2]-3 (citing Berenson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at [*2]).

The facts in this case are analogous to those in McAllister. Here, the case was only recently removed to this Court. Also, Defendants need time more time to conduct discovery. Although the Court is not without compassion for the Plaintiff, the Court must consider that an expedited trial setting would prejudice the Defendants by denying them sufficient time for discovery and preparation.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Status Conference and Trial Setting (Rec. Doc. 100) is DENIED.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Louisiana asbestos laws
• Louisiana asbestos exposure sites