Crescent City Physicians, Inc. v. Desse

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Crescent City Physicians, Inc. v. Desse

900 So. 2d 1019, 2004 La.App. 4 Cir. 0132, 2005 La. App. LEXIS 1030, 2005 WL 896448

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 30, 2005

DocketNo. 2004-CA-0132

StatusPublished

This text of 900 So. 2d 1019 (Crescent City Physicians, Inc. v. Desse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crescent City Physicians, Inc. v. Desse, 900 So. 2d 1019, 2004 La.App. 4 Cir. 0132, 2005 La. App. LEXIS 1030, 2005 WL 896448 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

|J?ER CURIAM.

The Appellants, Dr. Jean Desse and General Meyer Avenue Family Clinic, Inc., appeal the judgment of the district court granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the issue of liability in favor of the Appellees, Crescent City Physicians, Inc.¹ We Affirm.

The first issue raised in this appeal is whether the district court erred in determining that the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Agreement for Services at issue did not violate the Federal Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. Sec. 301, et seq. All issues regarding liability were fully discussed and resolved in the prior writ disposition by this Court, and the law therefore is the law of the case. Turner v. Pelican, 94-1926 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/95) 661 So.2d 1065. Thus, this issue is dismissed as moot.

The Appellees have also re-urged a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal regarding the issue of liability, only, for the lack of appellate jurisdiction. The issue of whether the appeal should be dismissed was resolved by the Supreme Court in Crescent City Physicians, Inc. v. Jean Desse, M.D. and General Meyer Avenue Family Clinic, Inc., 2004-1280 (La.10/1/04), 883 So.2d 963. Thus, the Appellees re-urging of a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal regarding the issue of liability for lack of appellate jurisdiction is also dismissed as moot.

While redundant, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

|J?ER CURIAM.

The Appellants, Dr. Jean Desse and General Meyer Avenue Family Clinic, Inc., appeal the judgment of the district court granting the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the issue of liability in favor of the Appellees, Crescent City Physicians, Inc.¹ We Affirm.

The first issue raised in this appeal is whether the district court erred in determining that the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Agreement for Services at issue did not violate the Federal Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. Sec. 301, et seq. All issues regarding liability were fully discussed and resolved in the prior writ disposition by this Court, and the law therefore is the law of the case. Turner v. Pelican, 94-1926 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/15/95) 661 So.2d 1065. Thus, this issue is dismissed as moot.

The Appellees have also re-urged a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal regarding the issue of liability, only, for the lack of appellate jurisdiction. The issue of whether the appeal should be dismissed was resolved by the Supreme Court in Crescent City Physicians, Inc. v. Jean Desse, M.D. and General Meyer Avenue Family Clinic, Inc., 2004-1280 (La.10/1/04), 883 So.2d 963. Thus, the Appellees re-urging of a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal regarding the issue of liability for lack of appellate jurisdiction is also dismissed as moot.

While redundant, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 So. 2d 1019, 2004 La.App. 4 Cir. 0132, 2005 La. App. LEXIS 1030, 2005 WL 896448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crescent-city-physicians-inc-v-desse-lactapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack