Cases

In re Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc.; — Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 92CA-0869; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 87-12474. Denied. WATSON, J., would grant the writ. DENNIS, J., not on panel.

In re Lifemark Hospitals/La., Inc.; — Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 91CC-0460, 91CA-1207; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 87-12474. Denied. MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.

In re Lifemark Hospitals of La., Inc.;— Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiora-ri and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 92CA-0869; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. “B”, No. 87-12474. Denied. WATSON, J., would grant the writ. DENNIS, J., not on panel.

HALL, Judge, concurring. Although the post-trial interlocutory judgment granting the new trial is not ap-pealable, it is subject to review by the court of appeal under its supervisory jurisdiction on plaintiffs application for writs filed in the court of appeal and docketed as No. 91-C-0460, if such application is deemed timely filed.

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: This appeal brings to us three of four consolidated actions arising from a failed relationship formed to build and manage a hospital and medical office building in Kenner, Louisiana, the latest round in the parties’ protracted litigation. Following a bench trial of the consolidated cases, the district court overturned a judicial sale of the hospital, reinstated vari

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: This appeal brings to us three of four consolidated actions arising from a failed relationship formed to build and manage a hospital and medical office building in Kenner, Louisiana, the latest round in the parties’ protracted litigation. Following a bench trial of the consolidated cases, the district court over

In re Liljeberg Enterprises Inc.; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “B”, No. 87-12474; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 91CW-1185. Denied.

161 B.R. 21 (1993) LIFEMARK HOSPITALS OF LOUISIANA, INC. v. LILJEBERG ENTERPRISES, INC. In re LILJEBERG ENTERPRISES, INC., Debtor. Civ.A. No. 93-1794. Bankruptcy No. 93-10295. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. October 19, 1993. *22 *23 Howard Earl Sinor, Jr., Edward D. Wegmann,

620 So.2d 1331 (1993) LIUEBERG ENTERPRISES, INC. v. LIFEMARK HOSPITALS OF LOUISIANA, INC. No. 92-CA-0869. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. January 28, 1993. On Rehearing March 24, 1993. Writ Denied June 4, 1993. *1332 Edward D. Wegmann, Harry S. Hardin, III, Jones, Walker, Waechter,

| ¡DALEY, J., dissenting with reasons. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. This award has the absurd effect of PNC being forced to give the Labadies more than 20 weeks of paid vacation per year, in addition to their salaries and bonuses, which is contrary to the Agreement or any custom in the physician employment arena. The threshold issue is how are o

720 So.2d 1244 (1998) LIFEMARK HOSPITALS, INC. v. ST. JUDE HOSPITAL OF KENNER, LA., INC., St. Jude Medical Office Buildings Limited Partnership, St. Jude Nursing Home Limited Partnership, Economical Pharmacies, Inc., John A. Liljeberg, Jr. and Robert L. Liljeberg, Sr. No. 98-CA-476. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit. October 28, 1998.

ORDER AND REASONS BERRIGAN, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Debtor Linda V. Mayer’s motion to withdraw reference to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The motion was submitted on a previous date without oral argument. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the motion is DENIED. I. Background

686 So.2d 87 (1996) Rickey PATTERSON, v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS. Lea Smith, wife of/and Toney KERSH, et al., v. UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al. Nos. 96-CA-0367, 96-CA-0843. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. December 18, 1996. Writ Denied March 14, 1997. *88 Joseph G. Albe, Metairie, for pla

In re Keel, Deborah C. et al.; Lifemark Hospitals of La. Inc.; Barbe, Larry; — Defendants); applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 532^29; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 99-C-988. Denied. CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.

In re Keel, Deborah C.; Lifemark Hospitals of LA Inc.; Barbe, Larry; — Defen*603dant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 532-429; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 99-CA-1215. Denied.

Marvin Isgur, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Coushatta Bayou Land Company, LLC entered into a mineral lease with Goodrich Petroleum Company, LLC in February 2010. (ECF No. 39-2 at 8 ). The terms of the lease provided Coushatta with royalty payments that are free from the costs of production. However, the royalty clause contains an exception: the parties must share production costs from "unaffiliated third parties" in which Goodrich

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RECOMMENDING AGAINST WITHDRAWAL OF THE REFERENCE [This Order Relates to Adv. Doc. No. 28] Jeff Bohm, United States Bankruptcy Judge I. Introduction On August 1, 2017, Rodney Tow, the Chapter 7 trustee in the main case (the “Trustee”), initiated t

452 F.Supp.2d 910 (2006) Sergio RENTERIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. CIV 05-532-TUC-CKJ. United States District Court, D. Arizona. September 11, 2006. *911 *912 *913 Herbert Beigel, Herbert Beigel & Associates LLC, T

199 B.R. 616 (1996) In the Matter of Linda V. MAYER, Debtor. Linda V. MAYER v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS d/b/a South Central Bell. Civil Action No. 96-1782. Bankruptcy No. 13233. Adversary No. 95-1220. United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana. July 30, 1996. *617 Linda Venus Mayer, pro se. Nan Roberts Eitel, Jon

PER CURIAM: Attorney Joseph Mole appeals the disciplinary sanction imposed by the en banc court of the Eastern District of Louisiana. The questions presented are whether the en banc court adhered to its own rules and procedures; whether it provided adequate due process; whether its factual findings are supported by the evidence; and whether its chosen sanction was appropriate. Fi