John Drayton v. LaToya Shelbon and Car Solutions of Monroe, Inc.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 1, 2023
• Docket: 54,839-CA
• Status: Published

Opinion

Judgment rendered March 1, 2023. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.

No. 54,839-CA

COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

JOHN DRAYTON Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

LATOYA SHELBON AND CAR Defendants-Appellees SOLUTIONS OF MONROE, INC.

Appealed from the Third Judicial District Court for the Parish of Union, Louisiana Trial Court No. 49,620

Honorable Thomas Wynn Rogers, Judge

LAW OFFICE OF ALLEN COOPER, L.L.C. Counsel for Appellant By: J. Allen Cooper, Jr. Pamela King Newlen

THE DILL FIRM, A.P.L.C. Counsel for Appellee, By: James M. Dill Car Solutions of Monroe, Richard R. Montgomery Inc.

Before PITMAN, COX, and STEPHENS, JJ. STEPHENS, J.

The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the

peremptory exception of no cause of action filed by defendant Car Solutions

of Monroe, Inc. (“Car Solutions”). For the reasons set forth below, we

reverse and remand.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 1, 2019, plaintiff John Drayton was involved in an

automobile accident with defendant LaToya Shelbon on La. Highway 15 in

Union Parish, Louisiana. The vehicle being driven by Ms. Shelbon drove

off the road, collided with the guardrail, and then struck the vehicle being

driven by Drayton. He filed the instant personal injury action on November

23, 2020, seeking damages from Ms. Shelbon and Car Solutions. In his

petition, Drayton alleged that Ms. Shelbon had a “rental purchase

agreement” with Car Solutions on the vehicle she was driving at the time of

the accident, and that Car Solutions had an active license with the Louisiana

Used Motor Vehicle Commission as a “Rent with Option to Purchase

Dealer.”

Car Solutions filed a peremptory exception of no right of action

and/or no cause of action on December 29, 2020. Drayton filed a motion for

leave to file an amended petition on August 6, 2021, and an opposition to

Car Solutions’ exception on August 11, 2021. The trial court’s order

granting plaintiff leave to file the amended petition was signed on September

13, 2021, and the amended petition was filed into the record that same date.

September 13, 2021, was also the date that a hearing on the exception of no

cause of action filed by Car Solutions was held. At the conclusion of the

hearing, the trial court granted the exception of no cause of action and dismissed with prejudice Drayton’s claims against Car Solutions, based

upon its determination that Ms. Shelbon was the owner of the vehicle she

was driving at the time of the accident with Drayton, and that only Ms.

Shelbon, not Car Solutions, had to provide automobile liability insurance on

the automobile. It is from this judgment that Drayton has appealed.

DISCUSSION

After an answer has been filed, the authorization of the filing of an

amending petition is within the discretion of the trial judge or by written

consent of the parties. La. C.C.P. arts. 1151, 1155; Aymond v. Citizens

Progressive Bank, 52,623, p. 12 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/26/19), 277 So. 3d 477,

487, writ denied, 19-1200 (La.10/15/19), 280 So. 3d 602; Bilyeu v. National

Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 50,049 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/30/15), 184

So. 3d 69, writ denied, 15-2277 (La. 2/19/16), 187 So. 3d 462.

No answer has been filed in this case, so Drayton did not need leave

of court to file his amending petition. See, Newman v. Hoffoss and Devall,

LLC, 21-24, p. 11 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/9/21), 322 So. 3d 877, 884.

Nonetheless, he did seek such leave, and it was granted by the trial court,

albeit on the day of the hearing of the exceptions of no cause and no right of

action. The trial court did not give either party (especially Car Solutions)

adequate time to prepare for the hearing in light of the amended petition, and

the allegations raised therein were not properly before the trial court.1 It was

error for the trial court to grant the exception filed by Car Solutions without

1 In Wallace v. Hanover Ins. Co., 164 So. 2d 111, 120 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1964), the First Circuit, citing the 1845 Louisiana Supreme Court case of United States v. United States Bank, 11 Rob. 418, observed, “[I]t can be categorically stated that a trial judge abuses his discretion granted under Article 1151 when he allows an amendment which raises a new issue or defense at such a time as not to afford the other party adequate time to prepare his case to meet the new issue or defense.” 2 properly considering the allegations raised by Drayton in his amended

petition.

An exception of no cause of action questions whether the law extends

a remedy against the defendant to anyone under the factual allegations of the

petition. Kendrick v. Estate of Barre, 21-00993, p. 3 (La. 3/25/22), 339 So

3d 615, 617; Industrial Cos., Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665, p. 6 (La.1/28/03), 837

So. 2d 1207, 1213. The exception is triable on the face of the petition, and

each well-pleaded fact in the petition must be accepted as true. Id.

Appellate review is de novo. Because the exception raises a question of law

based solely on the sufficiency of the petition, an exception of no cause of

action should be granted only when it appears the plaintiff cannot prove any

set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Industrial Cos., Inc., supra;

Barrie v. V.P. Exterminators, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1007, 1018 (La. 1993).

Whether the plaintiff can successfully prove that the defendant is

liable under the applicable laws in this case is a matter of proof that goes to

the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. State ex rel. Tureau v. BEPCO, L.P., 21-

0856, p. 19 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So. 3d 297, 311. The merits of a claim are

to be determined after findings of fact, upon a motion for summary

judgment, or a trial on the merits, and the plaintiff’s ability to prevail on the

merits or whether the defendant has a valid defense are not appropriate

considerations on an exception of no cause of action. Id.; Madisonville State

Bank v. Glick, 05-1372 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/3/06), 930 So. 2d 263; Bergen

Brunswig Drug Co. v. Poulin, 93-1945 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/24/94), 639 So. 2d

453.

In light of the above, we do not reach the parties’ arguments as set

forth in their appellate briefs. We are constrained to reverse the trial court’s 3 judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the trial court

granting the peremptory exception of no cause of action filed by the

defendant, Car Solutions, is reversed, and this matter is remanded. Costs are

assessed equally to the plaintiff, John Drayton, and the defendant, Car

Solutions.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.