Donald F. Flores, Jr. Versus David B. Campbell; New Era Information Technologies, LLC; And Glen M. Feucht
Opinion
DONALD F. FLORES, JR. NO. 21-CA-665
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
DAVID B. CAMPBELL; NEW ERA COURT OF APPEAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; AND GLEN M. FEUCHT STATE OF LOUISIANA
July 15, 2022
Susan Buchholz First Deputy Clerk
ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
Panel composed of Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois
REHEARING DENIED.
SMC JGG
CONCURS WITH REASONS
FHW
DONALD F. FLORES, JR. NO. 21-CA-665
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
DAVID B. CAMPBELL; NEW ERA COURT OF APPEAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; AND GLEN M. FEUCHT STATE OF LOUISIANA
J., WICKER CONCURS WITH REASONS
Respectfully, I concur in the denial of Appellee, David Campbell’s,
Application for Rehearing. I reiterate my position stated in my dissent
from the majority’s opinion in this case—that the trial court here abused
its La. C.C. Art. 1920 discretion in ordering each party to bear its own
costs. As I previously stated, here there are no equitable considerations
that would justify a deviation from the general prevailing rule that that the
prevailing party should not be assessed with costs. This litigation was
necessitated by Campbell’s improper actions and the evidence
demonstrated no action by Flores to pointlessly incur additional costs or
any other conduct to justify assessing costs against him. Moreover, as I
previously stated in my dissent, the trial court in its extensive oral reasons
for judgment provided no articulable facts to support the decision for each
party to bear its own costs and I find no factual evidence to support any
finding that the “best interests of justice” would be served in assessing
costs against Flores under the facts of this case.
Therefore, I reiterate that the only issue with which I disagree from
the majority opinion, as stated in my original dissent, is the affirming of
the trial court’s assessment of costs in this matter. Because the application
for rehearing does not raise the issue of costs, I respectfully concur in the
denial of the rehearing as to the issues raised.
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
MARY E. LEGNON FREDERICKA H. WICKER INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ STEPHEN J. WINDHORST FIRST DEPUTY CLERK HANS J. LILJEBERG JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS DAY 07/15/2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
21-CA-665 E-NOTIFIED 24th Judicial District Court (Clerk) Honorable Michael P. Mentz (District Judge) Samuel Bradley Rhorer (Appellant) Daniel R. Martiny (Appellee) Albert J. Nicaud (Appellee) Jeffrey M. Siemssen (Appellee)
MAILED Honorable Robert J. Burns, Zachary S. Walker (Appellant) Bret D. Guepet, Jr. (Appellee) Judge Pro Tempore (District Judge) Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Judge Division "F" 10566 Airline Highway 3000 18th Street 24th Judicial District Court Baton Rouge, LA 70816 Metairie, LA 70002 4th Floor, Suite 4100 Gretna, LA 70053
Daniel B. Davis (Appellee) Randall E. Estes (Appellee) Attorneys at Law 4465 Bluebonnet Boulevard Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Donald F. Flores, Jr. Versus David B. Campbell; New Era Information Technologies, LLC; And Glen M. Feucht (Donald F. Flores, Jr. Versus David B. Campbell; New Era Information Technologies, LLC; And Glen M. Feucht) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.