255 So. 3d 1078
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- In January 2016 Proride Trailers, LLC and Jason Jarreau contracted to build a grapple trailer for Danos Tree Service (DTS) for $33,511.97; DTS paid a $30,000 down payment.
- DTS alleged the trailer was never delivered, the deposit was not returned, and filed suit (fraud, LUTPA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, veil-piercing, revocatory/oblique actions) on July 1, 2016.
- Appellants filed a document titled “Defendants Response” on July 27, 2016 that disputed some consumer complaints attached to the petition but did not deny many petition paragraphs and did not answer requests for admissions.
- DTS moved for summary judgment; Appellants did not oppose the motion and the trial court granted summary judgment, holding Proride and Jarreau solidarily liable for $30,000 and awarding $11,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.
- On appeal the court affirmed summary judgment and the solido liability for $30,000, vacated the attorney’s fee award, and remanded to determine whether fees are warranted and, if so, the amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Danos) | Defendant's Argument (Proride/Jarreau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Appellees argued undisputed facts established by petition and unanswered requests for admission show no genuine issue of material fact | Appellants argued their “Defendants Response” served as answers and created factual disputes | Held: Affirmed — unanswered petition paragraphs and unanswered requests for admissions were deemed admitted, so no genuine factual issue remained |
| Whether Jarreau may be held personally liable (veil piercing) | Alleges Jarreau is sole member, Proride was thinly capitalized and operated as Jarreau’s alter ego | Jarreau argued LLC status shields him and denied veil-piercing allegations in substance | Held: Affirmed — allegation that Jarreau was Proride’s alter ego deemed admitted; Jarreau liable in solido with Proride for $30,000 |
| Whether attorney’s fees awarded were proper | DTS requested fees in judgment | Appellants contested fees and argued none were authorized or properly awarded on summary judgment | Held: Vacated — appellate court remanded for further proceedings because record did not support award and fees were not addressed in the summary-judgment motion |
| Procedural effect of failures to answer | DTS: admissions and petition allegations should be conclusively established | Proride: the “Defendants Response” should be treated as sufficient to deny allegations | Held: Admissions law (Art.1004/1467) controls; failure to timely answer requests for admission and to deny petition paragraphs results in deemed admissions and conclusive establishment for purposes of litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Vardaman v. Baker Center, Inc., 711 So.2d 727 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (effect of failing to answer requests for admissions)
- Fausse Riviere, L.L.C. v. Snyder, 211 So.3d 1188 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (standards for piercing corporate veil and limited liability company separateness)
- Anglin v. Anglin, 30 So.3d 746 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (factors for determining reasonableness of attorney’s fees)
- Whiddon v. Livingston Parish Council, 915 So.2d 863 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (attorney fees allowed only where authorized by statute or contract)