### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

N o. 12-30429

MCKNIGHT MCGEE; RUFUS MCGEE; GLADYS MCGEE, Plaintiffs - Appellants
v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Defendant - Appellee

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cons w/ 12-30501 OTIS SARTIN; CYNTHIA M. SARTIN, Plaintiffs - Appellants
v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee

________________________________________ Cons w/ 12-30502 CATHERINE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant
v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D February 26, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 12-30429 Document: 00512155875 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2013N o. 12-30429 cons. w/ No. 12-30501 N o. 12-30502 N o. 12-30616 N o. 12-30621 N o. 12-30622 N o. 12-30624

_______________________________________ Cons w/ 12-30616 LEAH JOURDAIN; JOSEPH JOURDAIN, Plaintiffs - Appellants
v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee

_______________________________________ Cons w/ 12-30621 MORRIS JORDAN; TERRI JORDAN, Plaintiffs - Appellants
v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Defendant - Appellee

_______________________________________

2 Case: 12-30429 Document: 00512155875 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2013N o. 12-30429 cons. w/ No. 12-30501 N o. 12-30502 N o. 12-30616 N o. 12-30621 N o. 12-30622 N o. 12-30624 Cons w/ 12-30622 TRAVELLA MCINTOSH, Plaintiff - Appellant
v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee

_______________________________________ Cons w/ 12-30624 ALVIN JACKSON; TEENER JACKSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants
v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11-CV-1686

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

3 Case: 12-30429 Document: 00512155875 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2013N o. 12-30429 cons. w/ No. 12-30501 N o. 12-30502 N o. 12-30616 N o. 12-30621 N o. 12-30622 N o. 12-30624 PER CURIAM: * In these s even c onsolidated cases, McKnight McGee and other property

owners in Orleans P arish (“Appell a n t s”) appeal the F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 12(c) dismissals of their claims seeking damages caused b y Hurricane Katrina. Because Appellants’ claims are untimely, we affirm. I. On September 3 , 2010, Appellants f iled a mass joinder suit seeking payments from their homeowner insurer, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Fa r m ” ) , f

o r wind damage caused b y Hurricane K atrina. The district court granted State Farm’s motion to sever the mass joinder and ordered Appellants’ counsel to file i ndividual amended complaints no later than July 19, 2 0 1 1

. A ppellants f

iled their individual c omplaints on July 15, 2011, ea c h identical to the mass j oinder complaint. State Farm moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), noting t ha t the prescriptive p e r i o d f

or filing Hurricane Katrina claims had expired more than three years earlier on September 1, 2007. After concluding that Appellants had not m e t t heir burden of p l e a d i n g facts establishing suspension of prescription under Louisiana law, the district court dismissed the claims with prejudice.

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. 4 Case: 12-30429 Document: 00512155875 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/26/2013N o. 12-30429 cons. w/ No. 12-30501 N o. 12-30502 N o. 12-30616 N o. 12-30621 N o. 12-30622 N o. 12-30624 II. We r eview a district cou r t ’ s order granting a Rule 12(c) m otion for judgment on t h e pleadings d e novo , u s ing the same standards applied to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Johnson v . Johnson , 385 F.3d 5 03, 529 (5th Cir. 2004). Under Louisiana law, all claims filed against an insurer related t o losses from H urricane Katrina had to b e f iled by September 1, 2 007. 2006 La. Acts 802. Appellants filed suit o n September 7, 2010, more than three years after the prescri p t i ve d eadline. Appellants’ claims are facially prescribed, a nd Appellants bear the burden of proving suspension of the prescriptive period. Taranto v. L a . Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. , 62 So. 3d 721, 726 (La. 2011). 1 Appellants assert suspension under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Ar t

. 5 9 6 , w hich provides that “prescription on the claims arising out of the transactions or occurrences described in a petition brought on behalf of a class is suspended o n the f

iling o f the petition as to all members of the class as defined

or described therein.” L a. C ode Civ. P. art. 596 (2012). T his s uspension lasts until, i nter alia , there i s notice that the court declined t o c ertify t he class. I d

. To r eceive the benefit of suspension of prescription p rovided in A rticle 596, “an individual filing an i ndependent s uit m ust establish t hree predicate f act s : (1) the

1 Contrary to Ap pellants ’ as s ertions , w hether p res crip tion w as s us pend ed is a ques tion of law , not f

act. N ew by v . E nron Corp

. , 542 F. 3d 463, 468 ( 5th Cir. 2008)

. 5 Case: 12-30429 Document: 00512155875 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/26/2013N o. 12-30429 cons. w/ No. 12-30501 N o. 12-30502 N o. 12-30616 N o. 12-30621 N o. 12-30622 N o. 12-30624 existence of a t imely filed class action proceeding against the defendant; (2) that he or s he is a member of the class described or define d i n t h e i d e ntified class petition; and (3) that t he claims asserted in the independent action arise ‘out of the transactions or occurrences described’ in that petition.” Quinn v. La. Citizens Prop. I ns. Corp. , No. 2012-CC-0152, 2012 WL 5374255, at *8 (La. Nov. 2 , 2012). In their c omplaints, Appellants l i sted the following federal class action petitions t hat a ll e g e dly suspended prescription pursuant t o Article 596: (1) Connie Abadie et al

. v . Aegis Security Ins. Co. et al. , No. 0 6-5164 (E.D. La. filed Aug. 2 9, 2006) (“

A badie I ”); (2) S usan Abadie et al. v . Aegis Security Ins. Co. et a l. , N o. 07-5112 (E.D. La. filed Aug. 28, 2007) (“ Abadie II

”); (3) In re: Katrina Canal B reaches Con s o l

. L i t i gation , No. 05-4182 (E.D. L a. filed M a r. 15, 2007) (“ Master Complaint ”); a nd (4) Louisiana State et a l

. v . A AA Ins. et al. , No. 07- 5528 ( E.D. La. filed S e pt. 11, 2007) (“ Road Home ”). The district court concluded that none of these c l a s s action petitions met the requirements to suspend prescription un d e r Article 5 96 because (1) State Farm was not a defendant in Abadie II

; (2) A ppellants’ c laims were unrelated to the c laims in Abadie I and the Master Complaint ; 2 a n d ( 3 ) Appellants were neither c l ass m embers of nor had claims related to the class action in Road Home

.

2 The d is trict court noted that A ba di e I and the M a ster Com

pl a i nt involved attem p ts to recover f

or f lood dam age, w hereas the p res ent claim s s eek p aym ents f or w ind d am age. 6 Case: 12-30429 Document: 00512155875 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/26/2013N o. 12-30429 cons. w/ No. 12-30501 N o. 12-30502 N o. 12-30616 N o. 12-30621 N o. 12-30622 N o. 12-30624 O n a p peal, Appellants only assert all three of A rticle 596’s predicate facts in regard to the Master Complaint

. 3 Appellants contend that prescription is still suspended because there has been no notice that class certification was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of L ouisiana in 2009,

even though federal rules d o n ot allow for the publication of notice after a denial of class certification. Recently, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court h eld that “the suspension of prescription provided [under Arti c l e 5 9 6 ] applies only to ‘petition[s] brought on behalf of a class’ in the s tate c ourts of Louisiana.” Quinn , 2012 WL 5374255, a t *15 (footnote omitted). A s a federal c l ass action petition, t h e M a s t er Complaint cannot suspend prescription under Article 5 96 a s a matte r of law. Therefore, the district cour t correctly held that Appellants’ claims are untimely. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3 Ap p ellants conced e that State Farm w as not a d ef end ant in Aba di e II

, f ail to as s ert m em bers hip in the Roa d H om e clas s , and only cite A ba di e I in the context of p rovid ing the p roced ural his tory of the M a ster C o m

p l a i nt

. Failure to ad equately brief an is sue on ap p eal cons titutes w aiver of that argum ent. U ni ted Sta tes v . Tha m es , 214 F. 3d 608, 611 n. 3 ( 5th Cir. 2000)

. 7 Case: 12-30429 Document: 00512155875 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/26/2013