Case Name: John PITTMAN and Iddo Pittman, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., d/b/a The Wall Street Journal, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1987-12-09
Citations: 834 F.2d 1171
Docket Number: No. 87-3548
Parties: John PITTMAN and Iddo Pittman, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., d/b/a The Wall Street Journal, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before RUBIN, RANDALL and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 834
Pages: 1171–1171

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.