Kyra Washington, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Thomas Hall, Charissa Michelle Laws as tutrix of the minor child, Thomas Alvin Hall Laws v. Steven M. Cutrer, Tedrick Washington, Kansas City Southern Railway Company and State of Louisiana, through The Department of Transportation and Development

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: September 6, 2019
• Docket: 2019CW0484
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

KYRA WASHINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND NO. 2019 CW 0484 ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS HALL, CHARISSA MICHELLE LAWS AS TUTRIX OF THE MINOR CHILD, THOMAS ALVIN HALL LAWS

VERSUS

STEVEN M. CUTRER, TEDRICK WASHINGTON, KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN SEP 0 6 2019 RAILWAY COMPANY AND STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

In Re: The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Steven Cutrer and Tedrick Washington, applying for

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 613124.

BEFORE: WELCH, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. The criteria set forth in Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So. 2d 878 ( La. 1981) ( per curiam), are not met.

M11

Holdridge, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. I would grant the writ application in part to vacate the portion

of the district court' s March 27, 2019 ruling reversing the prior partial grant of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants, Steven Cutrer, Tedrick Washington, and Kansas

City Southern Railway Company, pursuant to the Motion for New

Trial filed by the Plaintiffs, Kyra Washington, individually and on behalf of the estate of Thomas Hall, and Charissa Michelle Laws, as tutrix of the minor child, Thomas Alvin Hall Laws. A motion for new trial can only be taken from a final judgment. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mohamadian, 2009- 1126 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 17/ 10), 35 So. 3d 1118, 1121. The grant of a motion

for summary judgment that is dispositive of less than all of the issues and does not dismiss a party is not a final judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915( A)( 3). Therefore, the district court erred in reversing its prior ruling on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. However, this does not preclude

the Plaintiffs from filing a motion to reconsider the district court' s interlocutory ruling.

DE U Y CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT