183 So. 3d 622
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Baker Ready Mix obtained a $185,375.74 money judgment against Crown Roofing and, after judgment-debtor discovery, sued several related business entities and two individuals alleging a single business enterprise/alter-ego to reach assets.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment about nine months after suit; Baker opposed as premature and sought additional discovery. Baker served discovery hours before the hearing.
- The initial trial judge heard the defendants’ motion, took it under advisement, and on December 15, 2014 granted summary judgment for defendants — but the written judgment omitted decretal language dismissing Baker’s suit with prejudice.
- Baker moved for a new trial and requested written reasons. The initial judge left office before signing further orders; a successor judge declined to meaningfully review or grant the motion for new trial based on a stated policy of not revisiting predecessor judges’ rulings and denied the motion.
- On appeal the parties conceded the appeal should be dismissed because the December 15 judgment lacked decretal language and thus was not a final appealable judgment; the court dismissed the appeal but remanded for the successor judge to exercise discretion on Baker’s timely motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of summary judgment (decretal language) | Judgment is final; appeal should proceed | Judgment lacks necessary decretal language so not appealable | Appeal dismissed because judgment lacked decretal language making it non-final |
| Adequacy of discovery before summary judgment | Granting summary judgment was premature; Baker needed additional discovery | Sufficient discovery had occurred; summary judgment appropriate | Whether more discovery was needed is discretionary and reviewed for abuse of discretion; district court better positioned to decide |
| Standard of review for summary judgment issues | N/A (seeks de novo review of summary judgment) | N/A | Summary judgment issues reviewed de novo, but discovery-timing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion |
| Successor judge’s refusal to consider motion for new trial | Successor judge improperly refused to exercise discretion and denied Baker its statutory opportunity to seek modification | Successor judge relied on a policy of not revisiting predecessor rulings | Remanded: successor judge must exercise discretion and rule on Baker’s motion for new trial (failure to exercise discretion is reversible) |
Key Cases Cited
- Delta Staff Ceasing, LLC v. South Coast Solar, LLC, 176 So.3d 668 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (appealability requires proper decretal language)
- Herlitz Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (factors governing discretionary supervisory review)
- Simoneaux v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 483 So.2d 908 (La. 1986) (trial court may permit further discovery before issuing summary judgment)
- Newsome v. Homer Memorial Medical Center, 32 So.3d 800 (La. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review when continuances or discovery timing affect summary judgment)
- Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 774 So.2d 84 (La. 2000) (new trial is discretionary and requires balancing multiple factors)
- Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 151 So.3d 908 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (defining required decretal-language content for judgments)