Lakesha Strawder v. Ricky Simpson
This text of Lakesha Strawder v. Ricky Simpson (Lakesha Strawder v. Ricky Simpson) 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.
Opinion
Judgment rendered August 28, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 55,819-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
LAKESHA STRAWDER Plaintiff-Appellant
versus
RICKY SIMPSON Defendant-Appellee
Appealed from the Monroe City Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2021-CV-00672
Honorable Tammy D. Lee, Judge
LAKESHA STRAWDER In Proper Person
LAVELLE B. SALOMON, APLC Counsel for Appellee
Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and ELLENDER, JJ. PITMAN, C. J.
Plaintiff-Appellant Lakesha Strawder appeals the trial court’s granting
of Defendant-Appellee Ricky Simpson’s peremptory exception of
nonjoinder of an indispensable party and dismissal of her case. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS
Strawder’s house suffered flood damage. In 2018, she applied to have
her house repaired through the Restore Louisiana Homeowner Assistance
Program (“Restore Louisiana”). Restore Louisiana retained Masters
Enterprises, LLC, of which Simpson is the manager, to supply the repair
services. The repairs were invoiced to Restore Louisiana, which it paid after
an inspection.
On May 25, 2021, Strawder, in proper person, filed a petition and
named Simpson as the defendant. She stated that he was paid $16,087.41 to
repair her house but that he did not properly or fully complete the repairs.
She stated that she had to hire someone else to complete the repairs.
On June 2, 2021, Simpson, in proper person, filed an answer. He
argued that he did not owe Strawder any money because Restore Louisiana
made the payments. He stated that the services were approved by the state.
On April 4, 2022, Simpson, now represented by counsel, filed
peremptory exceptions of no right of action, nonjoinder of an indispensable
party, prescription and no cause of action. He explained that he performed
the repairs in 2018 and that Strawder’s suit was prescribed when she filed it
in May 2021. He stated that the work performed was not by him in his
individual capacity but by Masters Enterprises, which Strawder failed to join as a party. He also argued that Strawder has no right of action because she
was not the payor—Restore Louisiana made all payments.
A hearing on the exceptions was held on July 6, 2023. On September
1, 2023, the trial court granted the peremptory exception of nonjoinder of an
indispensable party and dismissed the action.
Strawder appeals.
DISCUSSION
Simpson argues that the trial court did not err in granting his
exception of nonjoinder. He states that Masters Enterprises was the proper
party defendant. He explains that Restore Louisiana contracted with Masters
Enterprises to supply repair services and that Masters Enterprises performed
the repairs. He notes that he, individually, had no contractual obligation to
Strawder. He also argues that the trial court should have granted his
exceptions of prescription, no right of action and no cause of action.
La. C.C.P. art. 641 addresses the joinder of parties and states that a
person shall be joined as a party in the action when either:
(1) In his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties. (2) He claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the action and is so situated that the adjudication of the action in his absence may either: (a) As a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest. (b) Leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations.
The failure to join a party to an action may be pleaded in a peremptory
exception or may be noticed by the trial or appellate court on its own
motion. La. C.C.P. art. 645; La. C.C.P. art. 927.
Appellate courts review a district court’s grant or denial of a
peremptory exception based on the nonjoinder of a party using the abuse of 2 discretion standard of review. Farooqui v. BRFHH Shreveport, LLC, 53,816
(La. App. 2 Cir. 4/14/21), 316 So. 3d 579, writ denied, 21-00654 (La.
9/27/21), 324 So. 3d 100.
The record in this case includes an unrefuted affidavit by Simpson in
which he states that the contract for the repair work to Strawder’s house was
between Restore America and Masters Enterprises, of which he is the
manager. He noted that all payments were made by Restore America to
Masters Enterprises. He explained that he, as an individual, did not contract
with Strawder and did not receive any payments from her. These statements
by Simpson demonstrate that Masters Enterprises is an indispensable party
in this case pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 641. Accordingly, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in granting the peremptory exception based on
the nonjoinder of Masters Enterprises as a defendant.
As the district court did not address the additional exceptions of
prescription, no right of action and no cause of action, we will not review
them for the first time on appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s granting of
Defendant-Appellee Ricky Simpson’s peremptory exception of nonjoinder
of an indispensable party and dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellant Lakesha
Strawder’s case. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Plaintiff-Appellant
Lakesha Strawder.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Lakesha Strawder v. Ricky Simpson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakesha-strawder-v-ricky-simpson-lactapp-2024.