Janice Claborne and Sheryl Jones v. the Housing Authority of New Orleans

Opinion

JANICE CLABORNE AND * NO. 2023-CA-0206 SHERYL JONES

*

VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL

*

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FOURTH CIRCUIT OF NEW ORLEANS * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2001-20605, DIVISION “D” Honorable Inemesit O'Boyle, Judge ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Karen K. Herman)

LOBRANO, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT

Wayne R. Maldonado Alex J. Granier UNGARINO & MALDONADO, LLC 3850 North Causeway Blvd. Suite 1280 Metairie, LA 70002

John W. Hite, III David P. Salley Glen E. Mercer Kourtney Twenhafel SALLEY HITE MERCER & RESOR, LLC 365 Canal Street Suite 1710, One Canal Place New Orleans, LA 70130

Juston M. O'Brien McGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC 301 Main Street 14th Floor Baton Rouge, LA 70801

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/PENN AMERICA INSURANCE

Warren Horn HELLER DRAPER PATRICK & HORN, L.L.C. 650 Poydras Street Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70130-6103

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/GUSTE HOMES RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Dennis J. Phayer Scott O. Gaspard BURGLASS & TANKERSLEY, L.L.C. 5213 Airline Drive Metairie, LA 70001-5602

COUNSEL FOR B.W. COOPER RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Wayne J. Lee Heather S. Lonian Matthew S. Almon STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMANN L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Suite 3150 New Orleans, LA 70112-4042

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

APPEAL DISMISSED JANUARY 19, 2024

DLD On December 17, 2001, Janice Claborne and other plaintiffs filed a petition KKH for class certification and damages against the Housing Authority of New Orleans

(“HANO”), alleging that they suffered damages from their exposure to mold while

living in housing developments operated by HANO.1 The plaintiffs amended their

petition in 2003, naming the B.W. Cooper Resident Management Corporation, the

Guste Homes Management Corporation, and Penn America Insurance Company

and others as defendants. The district court granted class certification on June 30,

2014; this Court affirmed on April 15, 2015. Claborne v. Hous. Auth. of New

Orleans, 14-1050 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/15/15), 165 So.3d 268.

It was also determined that the trial of the class action would proceed in two

phases. The primary issue to be determined during Phase 1 was not whether there

were individual breaches of the class representatives’ leases with HANO, but

whether there was “unchecked mold proliferation” throughout HANO’s properties,

1 For a more detailed version of the factual and procedural history of this matter, one may wish

to consult Claborne v. Hous. Auth. of New Orleans, 12-0808 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/29/13), 116 So.3d 894 and Claborne v. Hous. Auth of New Orleans, 14-1050 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/15/15), 165 So.3d 268.

2

caused by HANO’s failures that commonly affected all class members. “If the first

phase trial results in a ‘liability’ verdict finding that the defendants breached their

duty of care, . . . the class action will decertify or splinter into a ‘second phase’ to

allow the plaintiffs and all putative plaintiffs to individually present their specific

causation and damage claims.” Id., p. 19, at 285. Prior to the Phase 1 trial, the

district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the

issue of HANO’s liability; this Court affirmed.2 The plaintiffs had also previously

reached settlement agreements with several other defendants. The Phase 1 trial

against the remaining defendant, Penn America Insurance Company, took place as

a direct action and resulted in a jury verdict which found no duty on the parts of the

resident management corporations to maintain the premises free from mold and the

trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs.

HANO now attempts to appeal this judgment.

HANO raises the following assignments of error: (1) “The District Court

erred as matter of law by prohibiting HANO from offering any evidence, or

otherwise participating, in the Phase I Trial, which was a violation of HANO’s

constitutional due process rights[;]” and (2) “Alternatively, the District Court erred

as a matter of law by failing to order that it’s December5, 2022 Final Judgment for

Phase one has no res judicata or collateral estoppel effects as to HANO.”

2 Janice Claborne v. Hous. Auth. of New Orleans, 2023-CA-0182

3

The issues that HANO raises in its assignments of error do not involve final

appealable judgments. See Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 1911,

1915, and 2083. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED