Steven O. Richard v. Fred Taylor

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 9, 2015
DocketCA-0015-0681
StatusUnknown

This text of Steven O. Richard v. Fred Taylor (Steven O. Richard v. Fred Taylor) 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.

Bluebook
Steven O. Richard v. Fred Taylor, (La. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-681

STEVEN O. RICHARD

VERSUS

FRED TAYLOR, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CONCORDIA, NO. 47805 HONORABLE KATHY A. JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

JIMMIE C. PETERS JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Jimmie C. Peters, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Brian G. Smith Smith & Nwokorie P. O. Box 532 Farmerville, LA 71241-0532 (318) 368-9543 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Steven O. Richard Stephen N. Elliott Kenneth J. DeRoche, Jr. Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott & Davis 3838 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 3050 Metairie, LA 70002-8357 (504) 834-2612 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Fred Taylor Fred’s Automotive Repair & Wrecker Service, L.L.C. Catlin Specialty Insurance Company

James D. “Buddy” Caldwell Attorney General Kodie K. Smith Assistant Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division 330 Marshall Street, Suite 777 Shreveport, LA 71101 (318) 676-5729 COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR/APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Division of Administration Office of Risk Management PETERS, J.

The plaintiff, Steven O. Richard, appeals from the trial court’s grant of both

an exception of res judicata and a motion for summary judgment dismissing Fred

Taylor, Fred’s Automotive Repair & Wrecker Service, L.L.C., and Catlin Specialty

Insurance Company as party defendants in this litigation. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

On March 8, 2013, Steven O. Richard filed a petition to recover damages he

sustained in a March 27, 2012 automobile accident that occurred in Concordia

Parish, Louisiana. After the filing of a number of responsive pleadings and

amendments to the original petition, the parties identified as defendants were

ultimately established as the following:

FRED TAYLOR, who domiciles in Vidalia, Concordia Parish, Louisiana.

FRED’S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR & WRECKER SERVICE, L.L.C., a major corporation doing business in the State of Louisiana,

CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a major corporation doing business in the State of Louisiana who upon information and belief maintained a policy of liability insurance covering FRED’S AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND WRECKER SERVICE, L.L.C., a Louisiana corporation doing business in the State of Louisiana.

In his pleadings, Mr. Richard asserts that on March 27, 2012, he was driving

westbound on U.S. Highway 425 in Concordia Parish, Louisiana, when his vehicle

was struck by a vehicle being driven by Fred Taylor; that the vehicle driven by Mr.

Taylor was one left for repairs with Fred’s Automotive Repair & Wrecker Service,

L.L.C. (Fred’s L.L.C.); that the accident and his resulting injuries were caused by

the fault of Mr. Taylor; and that Catlin Specialty Insurance Company (Catlin

Insurance) provided liability coverage to Fred’s L.L.C. After answering Mr. Richard’s original and amending petitions, Mr. Taylor,

Fred’s L.L.C., and Catlin Insurance further responded by filing an exception of res

judicata and a motion for summary judgment in a single pleading. Mr. Taylor

asserted that Mr. Richard released him from all liability by executing a January 4,

2013 receipt and release. Fred’s L.L.C. and Catlin Insurance asserted that the

limited liability company had not been formed at the time of the accident and,

therefore, neither it nor its insurer could be liable to Mr. Richard for his injuries.

The defendants attached the following exhibits to their memorandum filed in

support of their exception and motion:

Copies of the original petition for damages and all supplemental and amending petitions filed by Mr. Richard;

A copy of the answer filed by Catlin Insurance and Fred’s L.L.C.;

A copy of a document entitled “RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS” executed by Mr. Richard on January 4, 2013;

A computer printout from the Louisiana Secretary of State’s office setting forth the pertinent recording and operating information for Fred’s L.L.C.; and

A copy of the unanswered requests for admission of fact and attached exhibits addressed to Mr. Richard on July 15, 2014.

Mr. Richard filed nothing in opposition to the exception and motion before

or during the October 6, 2014 hearing addressing those issues. At that hearing, the

defendants offered and introduced into evidence, without objection from Mr.

Richard, the attachments to their memorandum. After hearing the argument of

counsel, the trial court orally rendered judgment granting the exception of res

judicata and dismissing Mr. Taylor as a defendant. The trial court then granted the

motion for summary judgment and dismissed Fred’s L.L.C. and Catlin Insurance

as defendants as well. The trial court executed a written judgment on October 6,

2 2014, dismissing Mr. Richard’s claims against Mr. Taylor, Fred’s L.L.C., and

Catlin Insurance.

On appeal, Mr. Richard raises one assignment of error and couches it in the

form of a question: “Whether the District Court erred in granting Defendant’s [sic]

Exception of Res Judicata/Summary Judgment?”

OPINION

Exception of Res Judicata

With regard to the application of the doctrine of res judicata, La.R.S.

13:4231 provides:

Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:

(1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment.

(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.

(3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent action between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that judgment.

The supreme court set forth the factors to be considered in evaluating a res judicata

claim in Chauvin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 14-808, pp. 5-6 (La. 12/9/14), 158 So.3d

761, 765:

Under La.Rev.Stat. 13:4231, a second action is precluded when all of the following are satisfied: (1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence 3 that was the subject matter of the first litigation. Burguieres v. Pollingue, 02-1385, pp. 6-8 (La.2/25/03), 843 So.2d 1049, 1052-53; see also Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 07-2469, pp. 10-11 (La.9/8/08), 993 So.2d 187, 194. Since the 1990 amendment to the res judicata statute, “the chief inquiry is whether the second action asserts a cause of action which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first action.” Id. (citing Avenue Plaza, L.L.C. v. Falgoust, 96-0173, p. 6 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 1077, 1080, and La.Rev.Stat. 13:4231 cmt. a (1990)).

Additionally:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ritchey v. Azar
383 So. 2d 360 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1980)
Chevron USA, Inc. v. State
993 So. 2d 187 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2008)
Brown v. Drillers, Inc.
630 So. 2d 741 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1994)
Horton v. Mobley
578 So. 2d 977 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Higgins v. Spencer
531 So. 2d 768 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Burguieres v. Pollingue
843 So. 2d 1049 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2003)
Smith v. Leger
439 So. 2d 1203 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1983)
Duet v. Lucky
621 So. 2d 168 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Maltby v. Gauthier
526 So. 2d 455 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Avenue Plaza, LLC v. Falgoust
676 So. 2d 1077 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1996)
Succession of Teddlie
385 So. 2d 902 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)
Moak v. American Automobile Insurance Company
134 So. 2d 911 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1961)
Wilson v. Cost+ Plus of Vivian, Inc.
375 So. 2d 683 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Succession of Magnani
450 So. 2d 972 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)
Ortego v. STATE, DOTD
689 So. 2d 1358 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1997)
Richard v. Richard
74 So. 3d 1156 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2011)
Dwayne Chauvin v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
158 So. 3d 761 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2014)
Succession of Holbrook
144 So. 3d 845 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Steven O. Richard v. Fred Taylor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-o-richard-v-fred-taylor-lactapp-2015.