### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30043

K L IN G R E A L T YC O M P A N YIN C ; W A L E T P L A N T IN G C O

. P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s v. C H E V R O N U SA I N C

. , i ndi vi dual l y and as s ucc es so r i n i nt er es t , f or m er l y doi n g bu si n ess as T exaco Inc. , f orm erl y doi n g bu si n ess as T exaco E xp l orat i on and Pr o duc t i o n I nc D efen da n t

- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c t of Loui si ana

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B E N A V ID E S , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui t Ju dg es . C A R L E

. ST E W A R T , C i rcui t Ju dg e: Th e o r i gi nal opi ni on i n t hi s c as e w as i ss ued by t he panelon D ec em ber17, 2 0 0 8
. Kl i ng R eal ty C o. Inc. v. C h evron US A I n c. , 3 0 6 F

. A p p ’ x 2 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). A peti t i on f

or r eh eari n g i s c u rrentl y pen di n g bef ore t h i s pan el

. T h e peti t i on f or pa n elreheari n g i s gran t ed t o t h e ext en t t h at w e VA C A T E our previ ou s opi n i on an d repl ace i tw i t h t h e f ol l ow i n g opi n i on . I n al lot h er r espect s, t h e peti t i on f or p a n e lr e h e a r i n g i s DE NI ED

. T h i s c ase i n vol ves th e contam i n ati on of l an d by oi lan d ga s expl orat i on o ve r s e ve r al de c ad e s dur i ng t he t w e nt i e t h c e nt ur y. Pl ai nt i f fs - Appe l l ant s K l i ng R ea l ty C o. a n d W a l et P l a n ti n g C o. (t og eth er, “K l i n g/W a l et”) su ed D efen d a n tUnited States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30043

Two oth er wells wereaban d on ed as dryh oles. The thir d, drille d byanentity 1 u nre late d toC h evro n , wa s als o adryh ol e. 2 Ap p e l l e e Ch e v r o n USAI n c . ( “ Ch e v r o n ” ) , s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o T e x a c o , a n d t wo o t he r d e fe n d a n t s i n s t a t e c o u r t
. Ch e v r o n r e m o v e d t o f e d e r a lc o u r t , a l l e g i ng i m pr o pe r j o i nde r o f

n on- di ve r s e de fe nda nt s . The di s t r i c t c o ur t di s m i s s e d t he
no n- di ve r s e de fe nda nt s , a nd d e ni e d Kl i ng/W al e t ’ s m o t i o n t o rem an d. The di st ri ct court di sm i ssed al lcl ai m s w i t h p rej u di ce, h ol di n g t h at they w ere barred bypr e s c r i pt i o n a nd d i s m i s s e d a s m o o t K l i ng/W al e t ’ s m o t i o n for l e av e t o a dd a
n on -divers e p a rty. W e A F F IR M the j u d gm en t. BA CK GRO UND K lin g /W a le t’s cla im s a r e r o o te d in th e co n ta m in a tio n o f th e ir p r o p e r ty in I ber i a Pari sh, al l ege dl y caus ed by C hevr on’ s pr ede c es so r ( Texac o) w hi l e i t w as e nga ged in the e xp l o r at i o n a nd p r o duc t i o n o f o i la nd g as . Kl i ng/W al e t a nd C h evron w ere part i es t o an oi lan d g a s l ease rel ati n g t o t h e property, w h i ch t erm i n ated, at t h e l atestca lcu la tion, i n A u gu st 197 4. Fou r w el l s w ere e s ta b lis h e d o n th e K lin g /W a le t p r o p e r ty , th e cla i m s in th is ca s e re la te to W e ll N o. 6 ( “ W el l ” ) , t he o nl y w el ltha t w a s p r oduc t i ve f orC hevr on. The W el lw as 1 pl ugged and aba ndoned i n O c t obe r 1971. K l i n g/ W al e t ha ve us e d t he pr o pe r t y f o r s uga r c ane far m i ng s i nc e t he 1970s
. At t he t i m e t hat t hey began far m i ng, K l i ng/W al etw er e c onc er ned t hat
c r o p s w o u ld n o t g r o w o n a s m a ll p ie c e o f th e ir p r o p e r t y . A fte r b r in g in g th e ir
concerns t o C h evron, K l i n g/W al et en t ered i n t o a rel ease of cl a im s a ss oci ated
w i t h t h e W el lan d an y pi t , t an k ba t t ery, or ot h er pi ece of equ i pm en t assoc i ated
w i t h t he W el l( t he “ 1973 Rel eas e” ) , f orc ons i der at i on o f

appr oxi m at el y $4, 000. I t i s und i sput ed t hat C hevr on’ s ac t i vi t i es on th e p roper t y e nded no l at ert han 1 9 7 4
. K l i n g/W a l et f

i l ed this action i n Ju n e 2 0 0 6 i n L ou i sian a s tate co u rt. K l i n g/W al et sough t t o rec over com pen sator y a n d pu n i t i ve da m ages f romN o. 08- 30043

Whilethat motionw as pendin g, Kling /Wal et moved inAugust 2 007for leaveto amen d 2 their pe titio n to a dd an on-dive rse de fenda nt, M&C Contra c t ors, I nc. (“M&C”). The court deni ed the motionas moot when it hel d the u nderlyi ngcl aims had prescribed. I n light of o ur hol ding onthe issue of prescriptio n, we affirm the distric t co urt’s ju dgment a s to M&C as well. 3 C h e v r o n , E sti s W ellS erv i ce, L L C ( “E sti s”) , an d Ja ck P

. M a rti n , S r. ( “M a rti n ”) (c o lle c tiv e ly , “D e fe n d a n ts ”) fo r c o n ta m in a tio n o f th e ir p r o p e r ty lo c a te d in Ib e r ia Par i s h, Lo ui s i ana . Kl i ng/W al e t a r e c i t i z e ns o f Lo ui s i ana , a s ar e Est i s a nd M art i n . C h evron i s not. K l i n g/W al et al l ege t h at t h ey are l essor s, assi gn s, an d/ or
s uc c e s s o r s i n i nt e r e s t t o c e r t ai n o i l , g as , a nd m i n e r all e as e s w i t h Chev r o n. K l i ng/W al e t al l e ge d t hatD e fe nda nt s c o nduc t e d a nd/ o r pa r t i c i pa t e d i n v ar i o us o il a n d g a s e x p lo r a tio n a n d p r o d u c tio n a c tiv itie s o n la n d in c lu d in g th e ir pro per t y, c ausi n g ongoi ng pr ope r t y dam age and var i ous f or m s of em ot i onal d is tr e s s . I n A ugust 2006, C hevr on f i l ed a not i c e o f

r em oval

. I n O c t obe r 2006, K l i ng/W al etr es ponded w i t h a m ot i on to rem and t o st at e co urt
. In Ja nuary 20 07, t he di st r i c t c our t ent er ed a M em or andum R ul i ng and O r der , c onc l udi ng t hat
no n- di ve r s e D e fe nda nt s Est i s an d M ar t i n ha d b e e n i m pr o pe r l y j o i ne d, di sm i ss i ng t he c l ai m s agai nst t hem , c onc l udi ng t hat di ver si t y j uri sdi c t i on w as pr o pe r , a nd d e nyi ng t he m o t i o n t o r e m and

. In M a y 2 0 0 7 , C h ev ron f i l ed a m oti on f

or p a rti a lsu m m a ry j u d gm en t,
a rg u i n g, am on g o th er b a ses , tha t K l i n g/W a l et’ s cl a i m s h a d p r e s c ri b ed

. In 2 D e c e m be r 20 07 , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t g r ant e d Che vr o n s um m ar y j udg m e nt o n t he i ssue of p resc ri pti on fora l lcl ai m s an d den i ed as m oot K l i n g/W al et ’ s m ot i on f or le a v e to a m e n d

. K lin g /W a le t a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON I. D i ve rs i t

y Juri s di ct i on A d e term i n ati on t h at a pa rt y i s i m properl y j oi n ed and t h e den i al o f a
m o t i o n f

o r r e m and t o s t at e c ou rt a r e q ue s t i o ns o f l aw r e vi e w e d de no vo .N o. 08- 30043

Othe r th an a o ne-sentenc e re lie f request, Kling /Wal et make no argu ment that E stis 3 wa s p ro pe rlyj oin ed

. Th er ef or e th e is su e of

E stis ’sdis mi ssal iswaived

. See, e. g., Ed mo n dv . Collins , 8F .3 d 2 9 0 , 2 9 2 n .5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ Ona pp eal, we don otr evie w i ssu esn otb ri ef ed .”). C hevron does not argu e th at the first p rong is applicab le. 4 4 McD on al v. A bbot La bs. , 408 F

. 3d 1 77, 1 82 ( 5th C i r. 2 005 )

. H ow ever, t h i s c ou rt revi ew s a di st ri ct court ’ s procedure f o r d et erm i n i n g i m proper j oi n der only f or a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . G u i l l ory v. PP G I n d u s. , I n c. , 434 F

. 3d 303 , 309

- 10 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). K l i ng/W al etargue t hat t he di st r i c t c our t er r ed bypi er c i ng t he pl eadi ngs anddi s m i s s i n g M art i n becau se nei t h er part y pre s e nt e d s um m ar y j udg m e nt

- t yp e evi den ce r el ated t o w h et h er t h ey h ad an y possi bili ty of prevai l i n g aga i n st M art i n , an d C h evron theref ore di d n ot m eet i t s burd en t o show i m proper j oi n der. C h evron a rgues that M art i n w as proper ly di sm i ssed becau se,

3 Kl i n g /W a l e t ’ s p e t i t i o n fa i l s t o s t a t e a c l a i m a g a i n s t Ma r t i n u n d e r L o u i s i a n a l a w. C hevr on f

urt her poi nt s t o t he a b sen c e o f al l egat i ons orev i denc e pr es ent ed by K l i ng/W al et t o s ho w ho w M ar t i n was c o nne c t e d t o t he i r pr o pe r t y s uc h t hathe fac e d a ny l i ab i l i t y f

o r t he a l l e ge d c o nt am i nat i o n. T h er e ar e t w o bas es on w hi c h t he di st r i c t c our t m i ght det er m i ne tha t a pl ai n t i f f im p ro perl y j oi n ed a n on - di verse defen da n t t o defeat s u bj ect m att er j u ri sdi ct i on : “ ( 1) act u al f rau d i n t h e p l ai n t i f

f ’ s pl ead i n g of

j u ri sdi ct i on al fact s, or (2) i n a b i l i ty to esta b l i sh a ca u se o f a cti on . ” C ampb el lv. S t on e I n s. , I n c. , 509 F. 3d 66 5, 6 69 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7)

. U nde r t he s e c o nd p r o ng, t he t e s t “ i s w he t he r t he 4 de fe nda nt ha s de m o ns t r at e d t hatt he r e i s no po s s i bi l i t y o f r e c o ve r y byt he pl ai nt i f f a ga i ns ta n i n- s t at e de f e ndant, w h i ch st ated di f ferentl y m ean s t h at t h ere i s no r eas onabl e b as i s f orthe di st r i c t c our t t o pr edi c t t hat t he pl ai nt i f f m i ght be
a b l e to reco ve r ag a i n st an i n -st a te d efen d a n t. ” S m all w ood v. Il l

. C ent. R

. R

. C o. , 385 F

. 3d 568 , 573 ( 5th C i r. 2 004 ) (en ban c)

. “ T h i s m ean s that t h ere m u st be a
reasona bl e pos sibi l i t y o f r ec ove r y, not m er el y a th eo re tica l on e.” C a mp b ell , 509N o. 08- 30043

5 F. 3 d a t 6 6 9 ( q uo t i ng R oss v. C i t if i n an ci al, I

n c. , 344 F

. 3d 458 , 462 ( 5th C i r. 200 3) )

. Th e bu rden of p e rs u a sion on a p art y cl ai m i n g i m proper j oi n der i s a “h ea vy on e.” I

d. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t K lin g /W a le t fa i l e d t o s ta te a cla im ag ai ns t M ar t i n, r e l yi ng l ar ge l y o n Cant e rv . Koe hr i ng , 3 8 3 S o . 2 d 7 1 6 (L a . 1 9 7 3 ), and F ord v. E l sbu ry , 3 2 F .3d 9 3 1 , 9 3 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) ( d isc u s s in g li a b il ity of a super vi so r - em pl oye e un der L oui si ana l aw and appl yi ng C an t er)

. I n C an t er , t he L o u is ia n a S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t a n e m p lo y e e c o u ld o n ly b e h e ld p e r s o n a lly li a b l e f or i nj u ri es t o t h i rd persons w h ere: ( 1) t h e em pl oyer ow ed a d u t y of care to th e th ir d p e r s o n , b r e a c h o f w h ic h ca u s e d th e d a m a g e fo r w h ic h re c o v e r y is
s o ugh t ; ( 2) t hatdut y w as de l e ga t ed by t h e em pl o ye r t o t he de fe nda nt ; ( 3) t he defenda n t em pl oyee breach ed h i s du t y t h rough persona l( n ot t echn i calor vi cari ou s) fau l t ; an d ( 4) t h e em pl oy e e h a d a p ersonal du t y t ow ard the i nj u red t h i rd pa rt y, t h e breach of w h i ch speci f

i cal l y cau sed t h e th i rd pa rt y’ s dam ages. C an t er , 2 8 3 S o . 2 d a t 7 2 1 . F u r t h e r , w it h r e g a r d to th e a c c u s e d e m p lo y e e ’s p e r s o n a l fa u lt, p e r s o n a l lia b ility ca n n o t b e im p o s e d u p o n th e e m p lo y e e s im p ly becau se of

hi s general adm i n i st rat i ve responsi bi l i ty for som e f u n ct i on of
e m p lo y m e n t. Id

. T h e di st ri ct court f

ou n d K l i n g/W al et ’ s s u i t di st i n gu i sha bl e f rom F ord

. In F ord , t h e pl ai n t i f

fs su ed a ch em i calpl an t an d cert ai n i n di vi du al defen da n t s, i nc l udi ng t he pl antm ana ger. 32 F. 3d a t 9 36

- 37
. The de fe nda nt s r e m o ve d,
a lle g in g th e m a n a g e r , a m o n g o th e r d e fe n d a n ts , w a s im p r o p e r ly jo in e d

. T h is court concl u ded t h e For d pl ai n t i f fs d i d h ave a reasona bl e possi bi l i t y of rec overy aga i n st t h e pl an t m an ager, w h ere t h e fact s show ed t h at t h e pl an t m an ger kn ew o f th e le a k th a t le a d to th e e x p lo s io n . Id

. at 938

- 39. H ere, t h e di st ri ct c o u rt concl u ded t h at, i n con t rast t o F ord , K l i ng/W al e t m ad e o nl y ge ne r ala nd
u n sup ported al l egati on s th a t M art i n breached a persona ldu t y ow ed to t h em
w i t hout pl eadi ng fac t s es t abl i shi ng w hat t hat ac t i onabl e, non- gener alN o. 08- 30043

There are tw o para grap hs of the pet itio n that s p e c i f i c ally ref

ere nce M art in. In 5 para graph fiv e o f th e pe titio n, Martin is liste d as one of fiv e defen dant s: “JA CK P . MARTI N, SR., a Loui sian a r esident a nd lon g-ti me supe rvi sor i n the Fausse P oint Fiel d. ” Paragraph twenty -eight details th e alle gation s again st Martin: 28. Formany ye ars, de fenda nt Jac k P. Martin , Sr., serv ed a s supe rvi sor o f produc tionfor the operators wh o co ndu cted produc tionactivitie s in the subj ect oil fi el d. Hedir ec tlya n d pe rs on allysu pe rvis edth e i n st all a ti onan d u seo f pits , wells, p ipeline s, tank batteri es, g as pl ant s an d oth er installati ons or e quipment used in con nectionw ith produ ctionac tivitie s onth e Plai ntiffs’ property. He had person al knowledge o f th e activitie s of all defen dant s that caused or c ontributed to the pollutio n complaine d of here in. Furth er, in his supervisorycapacity he had the authority to pr ev ent or limit such activit ie s . Martinkne w that produc tion , dispo sal, and dischargeac tivitie s con ducte d onth e subj ect property were h az ardou s to person s an d pro perty . Martin knew that disposalof oilfiel d wastes i n unline d earthe n pits o r directly to w at er ways inevitab lyresults in se ep a g e which co nta mi n a te s b oth surf a ce a n d sub surf

a ce so il s and w ate rs . Despite his knowledge, Martin fail ed to warn petiti one rs conc erningth e n ature and extentof the polluta nts on their property. Martin had a person al dutyto protec t th e Plai ntiffs and th ei rproperty , an d h e b reached that duty, ther eby cau sing th e da mages describe d inthis pe titio n. 6 m a n a g e r ia l d u ty m ig h t b e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t t h e a lle g a tio n s in K l i ng/W al e t ’ s c o m pl ai nt a nd m o t i o n t o r e m and w e r e no t e no ugh t o e s t ab l i s h a C an t er dut y. K l i ng/W al e t a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n b y pi e r c i ng t h e pl ead i n gs regardi n g M art i n an d i m properl y shi f t ed t h e evi den t i ary bu rden f rom C h evron to K l i n g/W al et
. K l i n g/W al et f u rth e r ass ert s t h at i t s pet i t i on
su ffi cie n tly a ll e g e s a cla im a g a in st M a rtin u n d e r th e re q u ire m e n ts o f C an t er . 5 C hevr on ar gues t hat t he di st r i c t cour t conduct ed i t s anal ys i s pr ope r l y and t hat i t corr ect l y concl u ded t h at K l i n g/W al et w ou l d not be able t o recov e r a g a i n st M ar t i n und e r Lo ui s i ana l aw. W e ac kno w l e dg e t hati t i s l e s s t han c l e arf r o m t he pa ssage of

t h e di st ri ct court ’ s or der den yi n g rem an d w h et h er t h e di st ri ct court
e nga ge d i n a Rul e 12 (b) ( 6)

- s t yl e ana l ys i s , a s um m ar y i nqui r y af t e r pi e r c i ng t heN o. 08- 30043

Th e di strict court’s or der denying r eman d fir st summariz es th e parties arguments 6 re g a rdin gp os sib ler ec overya g ain stMartin , whicha pp eare d tof oc u s o nlyo nth e pl ea di n g s: Insum, plaintiffs argue[] that Martin’ s supe rvi sorycapaci t y ga ve him th e a u th oritya n d ap er so n al dutyt o pr event orlim itth e h a z a rd ou s p olluti on. . . whichMartinvio late d a n d thus r end er s himp er so n allyliab let o pl aintiff s. Defenda nt argues that alle gation s cont ain ed in both Pl aintiffs’ C omplaint and Motionto Rema nd are va gu e . . . and failto identifyth e e mployer fo r who m Martinworked

. . . or allege anyspecific acts performed byMartin that would give ri set o ap er so n al dutyo wn edt o pl aintiff s. Ho wev e r , i n it s c o m p a ri s o n o f th e p r e s e nt c a s eto Fo rd , wher e th e pl eadi ng s were pie r c ed , i tb ecomes less c lear whe theror not the distric t co urt thenpie rced Kling /Wal et’s pl ea di n g s a s p a rto f it s an aly si s: Th e fa ct s b ef

or e thisC ourtin th e in st a nt ca searedis ti n gu is h ab lef ro m Ford

. In Ford , theevidenc e pr ovide d by plaint iffs s uggest ed, by aff idavittes tim ony, th a t th e pl a nt ma n a g er kn ew of th e le a k, th er ef or e in dicati n gth a t th er e wa s a possibilityof recoveryagain st th e plantman ager. Her e, pl aintiffs make gene ral and unsu pported all eg atio ns th at Marti n breached a pe rsonal duty owed to the m . P la in tiffs h av e n ot provided anyevidence in support of th eir Motionto Remandrel atin g to the damage caused to the subj ect property or t o Martin 's kn ow le dge th er eo f. Th er e is n o evid ence th a t a ny of pl aintiff s’all ega ti on s ari se from an on-ma nagerial duty or thatMartin’ s positionan drespo nsib ilities entaile d moreth an gene ral administrativ e a nd mana ge rialrespo nsib ilities where Martincould b e h eld person ally respon sibl e u nder C a n te r . Moreove r, plaintiffs have faile d to produc e a nyevidence thatsuppo rts th e alle gationth at Martinkne w or should h av e kn own o f any ongoin g activities haz ardou s to the pr ope rty, and howa reaso nable “s uper vi s o r” in Ma rti n’s pos itio n shoul d have acte d onth at knowledge. The plaintiffs only point toth e fact th at Martin supervised certain activities of th e de fenda nts’ ont he s ubj ect property at the time of the in c ident, th at the supervisorypositionpre supposes certain kn ow le dge, a n d cl aimap ersonaldu tyari si n gf ro m th e pr evio u s t o pl aintiff s. UnderLoui sian a l aw, h oweve r, th ere must be more beforea court can find that ther e i s a possibili t y of findin g person al fault onth e part o f anempl oy ee. Conclu soryalleg atio ns, a s fou nd in plaintiffs’ Com p l aintan dM o tionto Rema nd, are not eno ugh to e stablish a Can te r dut y, as set out above. The plaint iffs have not se tf orthany summaryj udg ment typeevidence o r a nyoth er facts which would estab lishth at ther e i s a possibilityth at Martincould be hel d per sonally liableu nder Can te r . Kling, Order Denying R eman d, No. 06-1 492 , 20 07 WL 81665 , at *5(W.D. L a. J an. 8, 2 007) (c it a ti ono mitt ed). 7 pl eadi ngs, orbo t h, i n ar r i vi ng at i ts co n cl usi on t hat j oi nder of M ar t i n w as i m proper. H ow ever, w e need not parse t h e order t o deter m i n e w h i ch i t i s.

6N o. 08- 30043

S pe cifically , Klin g/W ale t’ s p etitio nsu mmari z esth e re qu es te d re li ef a s f ollo ws: 7 3 0
. I nsu mmary , Plaintiff i s th u s e ntitl edt o th e fo ll ow in gd a ma g es : a. . . . fu nds tocon duct a[] .

. . analy sis of the

. . . cont amin atio n on its property

. . .; b

. Th e co stt o re st or e it s p ro pe rtyt o it s p re -p ollute d, o ri gin al co n diti on. . . ; c. Pu nitive ore x em pl a ryd a ma g es ; d. Anawardf

oru n j u ste nrich me nt da ma g esf ord ef en da nts ’ u n a u th oriz edu se of Plaintiff

’sl a n d

. . .; e. . . . [ S] ti g mad a ma g esf ordim inu ti oni np ro pe rtyv alu e . . .; f. Me ntal a n gu is ha n d di stre ss da ma g es ; g . Anyc ivilf

ruit s d erivedf

ro m d ef en da nts ’ ille g al tr es pa ss; h. Da mages forannoy anc e, di scom f or ta nd inc onveni enceocc asion ed b y nui sancecre ated bydefe ndants, inclu ding lo ss of full use an de nj oy ment of Pl aintiff’s p roperty; and i. All othe r co nsequentialdama ge s . . . th at relate t o de fenda nts’ breach of contract, inc ludingth e co sts and attorney s’ fee s incurre d inbringing this action

.

8 W e a gr e e w i t h t he di s t r i c t c o ur t t hatK l i ng/W al e t ’ s c o nc l us o r y al l e ga t i o ns do n ot est abli sh a reason able possi bi l i t y of rec overy aga i n st M art i n un der C an t er , a lth o u g h o n d iffe r e n t re a s o n in g . S ee Un ited S ta tes e xr el. F a rm erv. C ity of Hou st on , 5 2 3 F

. 3d 333 , 338 n. 8 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) ( “ [ I] t i s an el em en t ary pro pos i t i on, and t he suppor t i ng c as es t oo num er ous t o c i t e, t hat t hi s c our t m ay a ffi rm th e d istr ict co u rt’s j u d g m e n t o n a n y g ro u n d s s u p p o rte d b y th e re co rd .”)

. S i gn i fi ca n tl y, t h i s cou rt ha s h eld th a t C an t er l i ab i l i t y t o t h i rd perso ns f o r t he
n e g lig e n c e o f c o r p o r a te o ffic e r s a n d e m p lo y e e s m a y o n ly b e im p o s e d fo r b o d ily inju r y cla im s . Un i m obi l 84, Inc. v. S pu rney , 7 9 7 F .2d 2 1 4 , 2 1 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 6 );
see F ord , 32 F. 3d at 935- 36 ( not i ng Cant er out l i nes c i r c um st ance s w her e a n e m p lo y e e co u ld b e h e ld “in d ivid u a ll y li a b le fo r inju rie s to th ird p e rs o n s”). B e c a u s e th e o n ly inju r y a lle g e d in K lin g ’ s p e tit io n is e c o n o m ic a n d e m o tio n a l – da m age to i t s propert y an d va rio u s f orm s of m en t al di st ress – K l i n g/W al et 7
w oul d not have a bas i s f orr ec ove r y agai nst M ar t i n und erL oui si ana l aw as i t has b e e n in te r p r e te d in th is cir c u it. S ee Un im b o b il , 7 9 7 F .2 d a t 2 1 7 ; a lso H ib er n iaN o. 08- 30043

The Louisia na precede nt principallyrelied on byth e Un imo b il co u rt , Fin e I ron Works 8 v. Louisian a World Expo sitio n, I nc. , 4 7 2 S o. 2 d 2 0 1 (L a . App . 1 9 8 5 ), writ den ied , 47 7 S o.2d 104 (L a . 1 9 8 5 ), re maingoo d law i nLouis ian a . See, e.g., Cameron Eq uip. Co., In c. v. Stewart and Stevenso n Servs ., I

nc ., 685 So. 2d 696, 700 (La. App

. 1996) (cit ing Fin e IronWo rks for the rul e thatabsentfraud , of

fic ers are not pe rs onally liab le for the debts of the corp orat ion) . Although Fin e Iron Works has not be en cite d w ith frequency, thereasoningof theca se re main s ineffe ct. See, e.g., Korso n v. I

nde pendence Mall I

, L td

. , 5 9 5 S o. 2 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8(L a . App . 1 9 9 2 ) (“ Off ic er s, employees and agents owe n o duties to thir dp ar t ie s , and canno t b e fo undli abl e tothird pa rt ie s fo rth e irn e gl i g e nta c t s a n do m i s s i o n s i nac o m m e r c i alc o nt e xt , s u c ha s thi s c a s e. ” (c itin g Unimob il 84, 79 7 F.2d at 215 -17)). In addition , w e have fo undn o i nterve nin g decisi ons or statuto ry amen dments that would c ause Un imo b il’si nte rp re tati ono f Can te r to be clearly wro n g . See L a m a r A d v e r t i s i n g C o . v . C o n t ’ l C as . C o . , 3 9 6 F

. 3d 654, 663 n .8 (5thC ir. 2 005) (discussin g doctri ne of pa nelstar e de cisis requirin g pane l in d iv er sityca ses to adhe re t o a priorpan el’s inte rpretationof state law in theab senceof a subsequent state c ourtdec isionor st atut ory ame ndm ent wh ich mak es t his c ourt ’s p riord ecis ion “cl earl y w rong” ) (qu oti ng Amer. In t’ l Specialt

y LinesIns. Co. v. C

anal In dem. C

o. , 352 F.3 d 254 , 271 n.4 (5thC ir. 2 003)). We als o note th at all of

the cas es applyi ng Can te r that Kling /Wal et has cited in its filin gs involved claims of b odilyi n

j u ry . See, e.g., McKee v. Kansas CityS. Ry

. , 35 8 F .3d 3 29 (5thC ir. 2 004) (featurin g a pl aintiff wa s a ve hic le passenger inj ured in a collision with a trainan d suingtrain en gin eers as we ll a s r ailc om pany); Travis v. I rby , 326 F.3d644 (5th Cir. 2003) (f eatu ring a plaintiff who wa s themoth er o f a driver kille d whenhis car was struck b y trai n at a r ail cr os si n ga n d suin gtraine n gin ee r a s w ell a s r ailc om pa ny). B ec a u sewer es olv e thisa pp eal with out lo okin gb eyon d Klin g/W ale t’ s p le a di n g s, we 9 nee d n ot de cide wheth er the distric t co urt erred eith er by pierc ing the plea ding s without n otice to Kling /Wal et and/o r shifti ng the bur den to plaintiffs reg ardi ng Martin’s improperj oin der. 9 C m ty. D ev. C orp. , I

n c. v. U

. S

. E

. C m ty. S ervs . G roup , I n c. , 166 F. Supp. 2d 511 , 51 5 ( E. D

. La. 2 00 1) ( ap pl yi ng bo di l y i nj ur y di s t i nc t i o n a nno unc e d i n Un im o b il)

. 8 B ecau se K l i n g/W al et ha d n o reasonab l e possi bi l i t y of rec over y against M ar t i n, t he r e w as c o m pl e t e di ve r s i t y be t w e e n Kl i ng/W al e t a nd C h e v r o n , a n d t he court properl y den i ed the m ot i on t o rem an d an d ret ai n ed d i versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on t o hea r t h e case. S ee G u i l l roy , 434 F. 3d at 312- 13. 9 II. Pre s cr i

pt i on B ecau se t h e di st ri ct court h a d p roper subj ect m att er j u ri sdi ct i on over K l i n g/W a l et’ s su i t, w e tu rn to t h e is s u e of w h eth er C h ev ron w a s en ti tl ed to
su m m a ry j u d gm en t. W e rev i ew the gra n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t de novo , a p p l yi ng t he sa m e st andard on appeal t hat i s appl i c abl e i n t he di st r i c t cou rt. Te r r e bo nne Par i s h S c h. B d. v. Mo bi lO i lCor p. , 3 1 0 F .3d 8 7 0 , 8 7 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ).N o. 08- 30043

10 Sum m ar y j u d g m e n t m a y b e g r a n t e d i f t h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a ny
m a te r ia l fa c t a n d th e m o v a n t is e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tt e r o f la w . F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 56( C ). I n deter m i n i n g w h et h er s u m m ary j u dg m en t i s ap propri ate, al lof t he e vi de nc e and al lo f t he fac t uali nfe r e nc e s f r o m t he e vi de nc e a r e v i e w e d i n a lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e p a r ty o p p o s in g th e m o tio n . T err ebon n e Pa ri sh , 310 F

. 3d a t 877
. Agen u i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact exi st s i f t h e rec ord, t ak en as a
w h o le , co u ld le a d a ra tio n a l tr ie r o f fa c t t o fin d fo r th e n o n -m o v in g p a r ty
. Id

. O r di nar i l y, t he pa r t y pl e ad i ng pr e s c r i pt i o n b e ar s t he b u rden o f pr o vi ng th a t th e p la in tiff

’ s cla im s h a v e p r e s c r ib e d

. In re M oses , 788 So. 2d 117 3, 1177- 78 (L a . 2 0 0 1 ). H ow ev er, b eca u se m ore tha n a y ea r h a s elap sed be tw ee n the tim e of t h e torti ou s con d u ct an d the filin g of th e tort su i t, the bu rd en sh i ft s to K lin g /W a le t to d e m o n s tr a te p r e s c r ip tio n w a s s u s p e n d e d o r in t e r r u p te d

. Id

. K li n g /W a let as se rt th a t e ith e r or b o th th e d o ctr in e of c o n t r a n o n v a l e n t e m and th e th e o r y o f c o n tin u in g to r t s u s p e n d o r in te r r u p t p r e s c r ip tio n in th is ca s e . A

. D o ctr in e of C o n t r a No n V a l e n t e m K l i n g/W al et fi rs t a rgue tha t t h e court err ed i n gran t i n g sum m ary j u d gm en t ba sed on pr escr i p ti on be ca u se m a te r ia l is s u es o f fact are i n disp u te regardi n g t h e reasonab l en ess of t h ei r del ay i n f

i l i n g sui t un der th e d oct ri n e of contr a n on val ente m . Spec i f i c al l y, K l i ng/W al et argue t hat t her e i s a fac t ual di spu t e abou t w h en t h ey becam e f u l l y aw are of

t h e ext en t an d k i n d of
c o nt am i nat i o n o n t he i r l and , a nd t hus o f t he i r r i ghtt o s ue . Che vr o n r e s po nds t h a t Kl i n g /W a l e t h a d k n o wl e d g e f o r d e c a d e s o f

a l l e g e d c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f t he p r o p e r t y a n d i t s l a c k o f p r o d u c t i v i t y , Kl i n g /W a l e t c o u l d n o t r e l y o n co n t ra non v a l e n t e m t o a vo i d the r unn i ng of pr es c r i pt i on. Ch evr on f urt her ar gues t hat
c o n t r a n o n v a l e n t e m i s i n ap pl i cabl e becau se of t h e t est i m on i al an d d ocum en t ary e vi de nc e t hatK l i ng/W al et k n ew si nc e t he 1 97 0s t hatt he s o i ls ur r o undi ng t he W e ll w o u ld n o t s u s ta in cr o p g r o w th

.N o. 08- 30043

11 T h e d o ctr in e of c o n t r a n o n v a l e n t e m w a s crea ted by the L ou i sian a cou rts
a s a n e x c e p tio n to th e g e n e r a l ru le s o f p r e s c r ip tio n . Wi m berl y v. G atr ch , 635 So. 2 d 2 0 6 (L a . 1 9 9 4 ). D a m a g e is co n s id e r e d to h a v e b e e n s u s ta in e d o n ly w h e n it h as m an i fest ed i t sel f w i t h suf

f i ci en t cer t ai n t y t o sup port accrual of a c a u se of
a ctio n . “T h e d o ctr in e of c o n t r a n o n v a l e n t e m pre vent s t he r unn i ng of l i ber at i ve pre sc r i pt i on w her e t he c ause of act i on i s not know n or r eas onabl y know abl e b y th e p l a i n ti ff

. ” Col e v. C e l o t e xCor p. , 6 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 5 6 (L a . 1 9 9 3 ); see al so El dr e dge v . Mar t i n Mar i e t t a Co r p. , 2 07 F. 3d 737 , 743 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 0)

. Lo ui s i ana recogni zes f

ou r s i t u ati on s w h ere contr a n on val ente m a p p lie s . Caus by v. Pe r que Fl o o rCo v e r i ng , 7 0 7 S o . 2d 23 , 25 ( L a. 199 8)

. Th e t w o at i ssue h ere are: ( 1) w h ere t h e debtor h as don e som e act ef fect u al l y t o preven t t h e cr edi t or f rom ava i l i n g h i m sel f

of hi s c au se of

act i on ; an d ( 2) w h ere t h e caus e o f a ctio n is not kn ow n or reasona bl y kn ow able by the pl ai n t i f f ev en t h ou gh pl ai n t i f f ’ s i gn oran ce is n o t in d u c e d b y th e d e fe n d a n t. I d. W h en prescr i ption b e g ins t o run dep en ds on t h e reasonab l en ess of K l i n g/W al et ’ s i n act i on . S ee C o le , 6 2 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 7 ; see als o T err ebon n e Pa ri sh Sc h. Bd. , 310 F

. 3d at 884
. A s a j u di ci al excepti on t o t h e st atutor y rul e of prescr i pti o n , L ou i si an a courts st ri ct l y constr u e c o n t r a n o n v a l e n t e m a n d o n ly ext end i t s benef

i t s up t o “ t he t i m e t hat t he plain ti ff h as ac t ual orc ons t r uct i ve k n ow l ed ge of th e t ortiou s ac t. ” E l dre dge , 2 07 F

. 3d at 743 ( af f i rm i n g sum m ary j udgm ent of

pr es c r i pt i on w her e pl ai nt i f f n ot i c ed dam age t o l and f r om t ug- boat
c o mp a n y a c t i o n s , y e t t o o k n o f u r t h e rl e g a ls t e p s t o s t o p t h e t o r t u n t i lt wo de c ad e s l at e r )

. K l i ng/W al e t a l l e ge t hatChev r o n m i sl ed t h em abo ut t he ki nd and ext ent of

c ont am i nat i on w hen t hey r ai se d t he i ss ue of so i l dam age i n 1973. They f u r t he r a l l e ge t hatt he da m ag e w as no t r e as o nab l y kno w ab l e ( and
u n k n o w n ) u n til w ith in a y e a r o f filin g th e p r e s e n t s u it. W e con cl u d e th a t c o n t r a n o n v a l e n t e m i s i n a p p l i ca b l e to K l i n g/W a l et’ s su i t. Ther e i s no e vi de nc e i n t he r e c o r d s ho w i ng t hat Chev r o n was a w ar e o f i nc r e as i ngN o. 08- 30043

12 c o nt am i nat i o n f

r o m s al t o r o t he r w i s e a f t e r t he 19 73 Rel e as e o r a c t e d t o pr e ve nt K lin g /W a le t fr o m a v a ilin g th e m s e lv e s o f th e irca u s e o f a c ti o n in a tim e ly
m an n er. I n ad di t i on t o t h ose contam i n ati on probl em s K l i n g/W al et w ere aw are o f a t t he t i m e o f

t he 1 97 3 Rel e as e , M r . W al e t a l s o t e s t i f i e d i n deposi t i o n a bo ut hi s hi s t o r y o f

far m i ng o n t he s ubj e c t pr o pe r t y and kno w l e dg e o f l o w y i e l ds a nd
c r o p p r o b l e ms o v e r t h e y e a r s s i n c e t h e We l l w a s p l u g g e d

. D o c u me n t s f r o m a f orm er K l i n g/W al et representat i ve m en t i on ed C h evron’ s “ du m pi n g sal t w ater , o ily b y -p r o d u c ts , ch e m ic a ls , o n ” t h e p r o p e r ty a n d co n c e r n s a b o u t t h e “v ir tu a lly
ze r o” pr oduc t i vi t y o f t he l and. A s ea rl y as t he 1970s , K l i ng/W al ethad in fo r m a tio n “s u ffic ie n t t o e x c ite a tt e n tio n a n d p r o m p t fu r th e r in q u ir y ,” y e t d id
n o t in v e s tig a te o r b r in g th e ir c la im s u n til n o w . See E l dre dge , 207 F. 3d at 743. B

. C on t i n u i n g T ort K l i ng/W al e t f

ur t he r arg ue t hata c o nt i nui ng t o r t ha s s us pe nde d t he
run n i n g of

prescr i pti on . Sp eci f i cal l y, K l i n g/W al et a rg u e tha t t h e pol l u t i on of t he i r l and , l i ke dum pi ng f o r e i gn m at e r i al s ont o t he pr o pe r t y o f a no t he r w i t ho ut aut hor i t y, c ons t i t ut es a c ont i nui ng t r es pass or nui sa nce . C hevr on res ponds t hat t h ere i s no conti n u i n g t ort i n t h is ca se becau se t h e al l eged t ort i ou s c on du ct
c e as e d b y t he m i d- 19 70 s w he n W e l l o pe r at i o n c e as e d and t he f i nal r e l e as e o f

t he le a s e a t is s u e w a s re c o r d e d

. W hen t he t or t i ous c ause of i nj ury i s a cont i nui ng one, u nder L oui si ana l aw prescr i pti on does n ot begi n t o run un t i lt h e condu ct causi n g t h at dam age ceases. B u st am ento v. Tu cker , 6 07 So

. 2 d 5 32 , 5 42 ( La. 1 99 2)

. “ W he n t h e da m ag i ng c o n d u c t c o n tin u e s , p r e s c r ip tio n ru n s f r o m t h e d a te o f th e la s t h a r m fu l a c t.” S ou t h C en t. B el lT

el

. C o. v. T

exaco, I n c. , 4 1 8 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 , 5 3 2 (L a . 1 9 8 2 ). K l i n g/W al et ’ s kn ow l edg e o f th ei r c l ai m i s i m m ater i al t o t h e run n i n g of p r e s c r ip tio n in th e ca s e o f c o n tin u in g to r ts
. S cot t v. A m . T oba cco C o. , I

n c. , 949 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 8 0 (L a . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).N o. 08- 30043

13 Loui s i ana c o ur t s ha ve r e c o gni z e d t h at i n so m e i ns t anc e s t he unl awf ul i n vasi on of

an ot h er’ s propert y by h azar dou s w aste fal l s i n t h e cat egory of
c o n tin u in g tr e s p a s s . S ee S o u th C e n t. B ell , 4 18 So

. 2 d a t 5 33 ( ho l di ng pre sc r i pt i on di d not be gi n t o r un on t or t c l ai m by ow ner of underg r ound gas t an ks at f

i l l i n g st ati on f

or dam ages sustai n ed by un dergrou n d tel eph on e cabl es b y g a s le a k in g fro m th e ta n k s u n tilth e lea k in g ta n k s w e re re p la ce d ). K lin g /W a le t a r g u e th a t C h e v r o n d e p o s ite d s u c h w a s te o n th e ir p r o p e r ty in
con n ection w i th i ts oi lex p l ora ti on , tha t C h ev ron n o lon ge r h a d p erm i ssion to ke e p was t e o n t he i r pr o pe r t y o nc e t he l e as e w as t e r m i nat e d, a nd t hi s c o nt i nui ng fa ilu r e to cle a n u p th e w a s te is th e co n tin u in g to r t. See M& A Farm s, L td. v. V ill e P la tte , 422 So. 2d 70 8, 711 ( L a. C t
. A pp . 198 2) ( “ [ T ] h e t res p ass c on t i n u es a s lo n g a s th e o ffe n d in g o b je c t r e m a in s o n t h e p r e m is e s , a n d th e tr e s p a s s is te r m in a te d o n ly b y th e re m o v a l o f th e o b je c t w r o n g fu lly p la c e d th e r e .”). H o w e ve r , a “ c o nt i nui ng t o r t is o c c as i o ne d b y unl awf ula c t s , no t t he
con ti n u a ti o n o f th e il leff ects of an origi n a l , w ron gfu lact. ” Crump v . Sab i ne R i v e rAut h. , 7 3 7 S o . 2 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 8 (L a . 1 9 9 9 ) (c o n tin u in g to r t t h e o r y d id n o t a p p ly
w h ere prop ert y ow n er s u ed ri ver au t h ori t y cl ai m i n g t h at c an al du g on au t h ori t y’ s propert y by t h i rd pa rt i es di vert ed w ater f rom t h e bay ou f

l ow i n g over t h e ow n er’ s propert y)

. “ [ F ]or t h ere t o be a conti n u i n g t ort t h ere m u st be a
c o nt i nui ng dut y o w e d t o t he pl ai nt i f f a nd a c o nt i nui ng br e ac h of t hatdut y byt he d efen d a n t. ” C r u mp , 7 37 S o. 2 d at 7 28
. H e r e , t he W e l lw as pl ugg e d a nd
a b a n d on ed on O ctob er 2 1 , 1 9 7 1
. K l i n g/W a l et e n tered in to th e 1 9 7 3 R elea se w i th C h evron a f

t er C h evron “res t ored t h e property t o i t s or i gi n al condit i on . ” B ecau se t he 1973 R el eas e c ont ai ned a t hre e- yearw i ndow f orc l ai m s, pre sc r i pt i on be gan t o run t h ree years af t er t h e date of

t h e 197 3 R el ease. F u rth e r, “th e b re a ch of th e d u ty to r igh t a w ro n g a n d m a k e t h e p la in tiff
w h ol e si m pl y can n ot be a conti n u i n g w rong w h i ch susp en ds t h e run n i n g of pr e sc rip tion , as t h at i s t h e pu rpose of an y l aw sui tan d the obl i gati on of everyN o. 08- 30043

14 tortfea sor.” Id

. Loui si ana l aw di st i ngui she s bet w ee n ac t s of t r es pass t hat t e r m in a t e a n d th o s e th a t c o n t in u e . F o r e x a m p le , b u ll d o z in g a le v e e o n p la in t if f’s pr o pe r t y i s a t r e s pa s s b ut no t a c o nt i nui ng t r e s pa s s b e c aus e no o bj e c t o r t hi ng
w as l e f t b e hi nd o n pl ai nt i f

f ’ s pr o pe r t y; i n co nt r as t , t he co ns t r uc t i o n of l o c ks a nd d a m s p erm a n en tl y fl oo d i n g a n oth er’ s l a n d h a s be en h eld a c o n ti n u i n g tort. C o mp a r e M& A F

a r ms , 4 2 2 S o . 2 d a t 7 1 1 -1 2 , w i t h C ooper v. L ou i si an a D ep’ t of Pu bl i c W

or ks , 870 So. 2d 315 , 323 ( La. C t
. A pp. 2004)

. Si m i l a r l y, l eavi ng a l e ak i ng ga s t ank und e r gr o und t o da m ag e c ab l e s o n t he pr o pe r t y i s a c o nt i nui ng tr e s p a s s , w h ile d ig g in g a ca n a l o n a djo in in g p r o p e r ty is n o t. C o mp a r e S o u th C en t. B ell , 4 1 8 S o . 2 d a t 5 3 3 ; w i t h C r u mp , 737 S o. 2d at 728
. T h u s, t h e qu est i on is w h e th e r a co n tin u in g p h y s ic a l in v a s io n o f th e p r o p e r ty is p r e s e n t. W e ar e no t pe r s uad e d t hatfai l ur e t o c l e an up t he c o nt am i nat i on c o ns t i t ut e s s uc h a c o nt i nui ng phy s i c ali nva s i o n und e r Lo ui s i ana l aw. Any
c o nt am i nat i o n o f

t he K l i ng/W al e t pr o pe r t y c aus e d by C he vr o n i s t he c o nt i nui ng ef fect of prior c on du ct ; t h e soi ldam age i s un l i ke d u m pi n g garba ge or l i t t er on a n o th e r ’ s p r o p e r ty
. S ee E st ate of Patout v. C i ty of New Ib er ia , 708 So. 2d 526 ( La. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ), af

f i r m e d by , 7 3 8 S o . 2 d 5 4 4 (1 9 9 9 ); D o r e v . Jef f e r s o n Guar

. Bank , 543 So. 2d 56 0, 562 ( L a. C t
. A pp . 198 9)

. T h e contam i n ati on at i ssue i n t h i s c ase i s di s t i ngu i s hab l e f

r o m t he l e ak i ng ga s t ank i n S o u th C en tra l B ell

. 418 So. 2d at5 33
. I n t hatc as e , t he t ank s a t i s s ue w ere l eak i ng e xt e ns i ve l y and
con ti n u ou sly thro u gh ou t t h e ti m e p eriod s u b j ect to l i ti ga ti on . In co n trast, C hevr on p l ugged t he W el li n 1971. Furt her , Loui si ana c our t s have di s t i ngu i s he d S o u th C en tra l B ell a s b ein g ba sed on a th eo ry of str ic t liab i l i ty
u n d e r L a . C iv . C o d e a r t 6 6 7 , w h ic h is n o t a p p lic a b le h e r e . S ee L a b a tu t v. C ity
o f Ne w O r l e ans , 6 8 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 8 , 1 0 4 0 (L a . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ).N o. 08- 30043

Klin g/W ale t a sse rtth a t th ey h av e st a te d twoo th erc laim s u n de r co nti n u in gtre sp a ss: 10 (1) duties of vicin age (duty owed b y it due to its status as a miner al lessee); and (2) the duty to di sclose base d onth eir contractu al relation ship. Howev er, the s e ar guments were not pr es ente d toth e di strictc ourta n d a reth er ef or e n otp ro pe rlyb ef

or e thisc ourt
. 15 Be c a u s e Kl i n g/Wa l e t h a v e n o t e s t a b l i s h e d a n e x c e p t i o n t o p r e s c r i p t i o n , we af f i r m t he aw ar d of

s um m a ry j udgm ent t o Ch evr on o n t he bas i s t hat K l i ng/W al e t ’ s c l ai m s a r e t i m e - ba r r e d. 10 CO NC L US I ON F or th e foreg oin g re a son s, w e A F F IR M th e j u d gm en t of th e d i stri ct cou rt.