243 So. 3d 1100
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- In July 2012 Davis left a 1996 Mercedes for repairs, paid $2,000 deposit, and was told work would take ~3 weeks; the car was never returned and its whereabouts are unknown.
- Davis sued in Monroe City Court (small-claims style), naming various business names and individuals; litigation spanned ~5 years with multiple amended petitions, exceptions, continuances, discovery and hearings.
- Service issues arose because the entity names and registered-agent addresses conflicted (European Motors, European Service, Ouachita European Auto Service, Dr. Nejad, Ali Moghimi). Deputy clerk reported service on registered agent Dr. Nejad could not be effected.
- Plaintiff served Moghimi personally pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1261(B)(1) after inability to locate the registered agent; the trial court found service proper.
- Trial on damages resulted in judgment for Davis: value of car, deposit refund, rental, lost wages, and costs. Defendant’s motion for new trial and arguments on service, amended petitions, and continuance were denied. Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was service on European Service, Inc. proper? | Service on Moghimi as officer was proper after registered agent could not be located. | Service invalid because registered agent (Dr. Nejad) was not personally served. | Service was proper under La. C.C.P. art. 1261(B) (personal service on officer when agent cannot be served). |
| Were amended petitions improperly filed without leave? | Amendments were authorized or ordered by court (first amendment) and immaterial (second amendment). | Amendments filed without leave; therefore improper. | First amendment complied with court order; second amendment harmless (no prejudice); error if any was nonconsequential. |
| Did trial court abuse discretion by denying continuance? | Plaintiff opposed; trial proceeded as scheduled. | Requested continuance (filed by defendant’s wife ad hoc) because Moghimi was detained abroad; good cause alleged. | Denial not an abuse: motion was by a non‑authorized person, failed to state adequate grounds, and defendant had opportunity to present proofs. |
| Was denial of motion for new trial erroneous (including damages/costs)? | Judgment supported by evidence; damages reasonable; costs within trial court discretion. | Argued trial court erred on continuance, service, damages, costs. | Motion for new trial properly denied; no abuse of discretion and damages supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Burris, 57 So.2d 779 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1952) (amendment complying with court order after exception sustained need not be by leave)
- Mayeaux v. Christakis, 619 So.2d 93 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1993) (procedural requirements and authorization to represent a corporation in limited-jurisdiction court)
- Johnson v. Byrd, 125 So.3d 1220 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of continuance)
- Nugent v. Car Town of Monroe, Inc., 206 So.3d 369 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (standard of review for motions for new trial and discretionary relief)
- Mitchell v. Brown Builders, 902 So.2d 1288 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (standards for awarding frivolous-appeal damages)
- Craig v. Moghimi, 169 So.3d 360 (La. 2015) (contextual appellate history involving the same principal and litigation pattern)