Verizon Business Global v. Wayne Hagan ( 2012 )

Case: 09-31226 Document: 00511802793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 27, 2012
No. 09-31226 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
WAYNE HAGAN; JAMES JOUBERT
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:07-CV-415
Before ELROD and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:**
We explained this case’s factual background and the issues involved in a
prior opinion. MCI Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Hagan, 641 F.3d 112 (5th Cir.
2011). In that opinion, we explained that “because the Louisiana Supreme Court
ha[d] not previously determined what standard of intent is used for trespass to
*
Judge Garwood was a member of the panel at the time of oral arguments. His death
on July 14, 2011, causes us to decide this case by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
**
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 09-31226 Document: 00511802793 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2012
No. 09-31226
underground utility cables and this issue is determinative of whether MCI is
entitled to a new trial on its trespass claim,” id. at 113-14, we certified the
following question to the Louisiana Supreme Court under Louisiana Supreme
Court Rule XII:
Is the proposed jury instruction in this case, which states that “[a]
Defendant may be held liable for an inadvertent trespass resulting
from an intentional act,” a correct statement of Louisiana law when
the trespass at issue is the severing of an underground cable located
on property owned by one of the alleged trespassors, and the
property is not subject to a servitude by the owners of the
underground cable but only to the contractual right to keep it, as an
existing cable, underneath the property?
Id. at 116. The Louisiana Supreme Court answered that question in the
negative. MCI Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Hagan, 74 So. 3d 1148 (La. 2011).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in refusing to give MCI’s requested
jury instruction. Having disposed of all of the other claims of error in our prior
opinion, we AFFIRM.
2