Stephanie Quintanilla Versus Eric Whitaker; Carlo Ditta, Inc.; And Zurich American Insurance Company

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 1, 2021
• Docket: 21-CA-160
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STEPHANIE QUINTANILLA NO. 21-CA-160

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

ERIC WHITAKER; CARLO DITTA, INC.; AND COURT OF APPEAL ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 806-068, DIVISION "I" HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER, JUDGE PRESIDING

December 01, 2021

ROBERT A. CHAISSON JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Robert A. Chaisson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

JUDGMENT VACATED RAC SJW JJM COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, STEPHANIE QUINTANILLA Cristian P. Silva William R. Penton, III

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, ERIC WHITAKER, CARLO DITTA, INC., AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY John J. Rabalais Chad N. Evans Joseph M. Mouton, II CHAISSON, J.

In this case arising from an automobile accident, plaintiff Stephanie

Quintanilla appeals a judgment of the trial court granting a Motion to Enforce

Settlement Agreement filed by defendants Eric Whitaker, Carlo Ditta, Inc., and

Zurich American Insurance Company. For the following reasons, we vacate the

judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2020, Ms. Quintanilla filed a petition for damages wherein she

alleged that she was injured in a December 5, 2019 automobile accident on Park

Shore Drive in the Parish of Jefferson, when her car was struck by a 2011 Mack

800 driven by Mr. Whitaker, who was driving while in the course and scope of his

employment with Carlo Ditta, Inc..

On October 12, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement

Agreement wherein they alleged that Ms. Quintanilla, through her attorney of

record, Jahida Lewis-Crawford, consented in writing to a settlement of all claims

against defendants in exchange for a single, lump sum payment of $10,000.00.

Defendants argue that Ms. Quintanilla accepted defendants’ settlement offer in

writing on September 17, 2020.

In opposition to the motion, Ms. Quintanilla argued that the settlement

agreement was never perfected because she had terminated her representation with

Ms. Lewis-Crawford before the settlement was finalized.

A hearing on the motion was held on December 3, 2020, at which time the

court considered arguments of counsel as well as evidence consisting of emails

exchanged between defendants’ counsel and the paralegal to plaintiff’s counsel, a

copy of the termination email and discharge letter sent to Ms. Quintanilla’s

counsel, copies of text messages sent from the paralegal to Ms. Quintanilla, and an

affidavit of the paralegal.

21-CA-160 1 On December 29, 2020, the trial court rendered judgment granting the

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Ms. Quintanilla’s timely appeal

followed.

DISCUSSION

A compromise or settlement is a contract whereby the parties, through

concessions made by one or more of them, settle a dispute or an uncertainty

concerning an obligation or other legal relationship. La. C.C. art. 3071; Chiasson

v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 12-532 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/21/13), 110 So.3d 1147,

1148. A compromise shall be made in writing or recited in open court. La. C.C.

art. 3072. The authority to enter into a compromise must be expressly given. La.

C.C. art. 2997. A party’s counsel of record does not have authority to settle a

client’s claim without the client’s clear and express consent. Coppage v. Transdev

Servs., Inc., 20-0419 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/19/21), 320 So.3d 1206, 1211, writ denied,

21-00549 (La. 6/8/21), 317 So.3d 328. When a trial court rules on a motion to

enforce settlement agreement, it makes a factual determination whether a contract

existed between the parties, and therefore we apply the manifest error or clearly

wrong standard of review. Howard v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 10-

1302 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/27/11), 65 So.3d 697, 699.

At issue in this case is the timing of the termination of Ms. Quintanilla’s

prior counsel and whether any settlement agreement was perfected before the

termination. The evidence in the record indicates that there were communications

via phone and e-mail between defense counsel, the paralegal for Ms. Quintanilla’s

counsel, and Ms. Quintanilla on the morning of September 16, 2020. According to

the affidavit of the paralegal, Ms. Karla Pennington, around 10:30 a.m., Ms.

Quintanilla indicated that she would accept defendants’ offer of $10,000.00. Ms.

Pennington’s affidavit further indicates that around 10:45 a.m. that day, as per Ms.

Lewis-Crawford’s instructions, she was supposed to send an email to defense

21-CA-160 2 counsel confirming Ms. Quintanilla’s acceptance of the offer, but she forgot to hit

the send button. Ms. Pennington did not send an email to defense counsel

confirming Ms. Quintanilla’s acceptance of the offer until 4:31 p.m. on that same

day.

Ms. Pennington also swore in her affidavit that on that same day,

September 16, 2020, at approximately 2:00 p.m., she was at lunch with Ms. Lewis-

Crawford when Ms. Lewis-Crawford received the email with Ms. Quintanilla’s

discharge letter. The email entered into the record confirms that the discharge

letter was sent by Ms. Quintanilla’s new counsel to Ms. Lewis-Crawford on

September 16, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.

The discharge letter, dated September 16, 2020 and signed by Ms.

Quintanilla, stated, “[p]lease be advised that I no longer wish you to represent me

for the automobile accident of December, 2019. Please stop working on my case

and provide my new attorneys … with a copy of our entire file.” Contrary to Ms.

Quintanilla’s termination notice and instructions, the evidence in the record shows

that Ms. Pennington attempted to convey Ms. Quintanilla’s acceptance of the offer

to defense counsel at 4:31 p.m. on that same day, subsequent to Ms. Lewis-

Crawford’s termination.

CONCLUSION

We find that the evidence in the record shows that there was no settlement

agreement in writing during the time that Ms. Lewis-Crawford had express

authority to enter into such an agreement on Ms. Quintanilla’s behalf.

Consequently, we find that the trial court manifestly erred in granting the motion to

enforce the settlement agreement. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the trial

court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JUDGMENT VACATED

21-CA-160 3 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA FREDERICKA H. WICKER 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 JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY DECEMBER 1, 2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-CA-160 E-NOTIFIED 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER (DISTRICT JUDGE) WILLIAM R. PENTON, III (APPELLANT) JAHIDA L. LEWIS-CRAWFORD (APPELLEE) JOSEPH M. MOUTON, II (APPELLEE) LOAN H. DO (APPELLEE)

MAILED CHAD N. EVANS (APPELLEE) CHARLES AYLES (APPELLEE) CRISTIAN P. SILVA (APPELLANT) JOHN J. RABALAIS (APPELLEE) KENDRA HARRIS (APPELLEE) ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1818 MANHATTAN BOULEVARD 1404 GREENGATE DRIVE 1506 WILLIAMS BOULEVARD SUITE 2 SUITE 110 1ST FLOOR HARVEY, LA 70058 COVINGTON, LA 70454 KENNER, LA 70063