Case ID: f2d_834/html/1171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John PITTMAN and Iddo Pittman, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., d/b/a The Wall Street Journal, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 87-3548
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 9, 1987.
    Iddo Pittman, Jr., Tom H. Matheny, Pittman & Matheny, Hammond, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
    Jack M. Weiss, Mary Louise Strong, Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
    Before RUBIN, RANDALL and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The district court’s order and reasons in this case, 662 F.Supp. 921 (E.D.La.1987), were sensitive to the court’s role as an Erie court. Finding no support in the Louisiana law for the plaintiffs’ theories of recovery in tort or in contract, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ case. The plaintiffs’ appellate brief cites no new authority, but simply urges us as a matter of public policy to place the responsibility for the plaintiffs’ loss on The Wall Street Journal. Even if we agreed with the plaintiffs’ policy arguments, which we do not, we are not free to fashion new theories of recovery under Louisiana law.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed on the basis of that court’s opinion.