Case Name: Saleta GALLIEN; Russell Griffin; Noah Laughlin, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY; Lake Ellis, DefendantsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-12
Citations: 303 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 08-30415
Parties: Saleta GALLIEN; Russell Griffin; Noah Laughlin, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY; Lake Ellis, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Saleta GALLIEN; Russell Griffin; Noah Laughlin, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY; Lake Ellis, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 08-30415.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 12, 2008.
Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, Plaquemine, LA, Jill Leininger Craft, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Charles S. McCowan, Jr., Glenn Michael Farnet, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiffs-appellants sought relief from the defendants-appellees under theories of abuse of right and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed their claims with preju dice. It held that insofar as their claims derive from their terminations (in 2005 and 2006) by Conoco Phillips or its contractors, the claims are prescribed. Even if the claims had not been prescribed, it held that the plaintiffs failed to state claims of either intentional infliction of emotional distress or abuse of right, particularly in light of Louisiana's at-will employment law. Finally, there was and is no "continuing tort" that could emerge from Conoco Phillips' alleged refusal to consider them for renewed employment for the reasons the plaintiffs-appellants allege.
Finding no error in the district court's judgment, we AFFIRM.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.