Freeman v. Zara's Food Store, Inc.
204 So. 3d 691
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Freeman worked as a cashier at Zara’s (owner/manager Joseph Zara) from 1989–2012; on Oct. 5, 2012 she alleges Zara touched her inappropriately at the register, she struck him, police were called, Zara pled guilty to battery, Freeman was later fired.
- Freeman sued in federal court (Title VII and LEDL plus state claims). The federal court ultimately dismissed the federal and LEDL claims with prejudice but (after amendment) dismissed Freeman’s remaining state-law claims without prejudice.
- Freeman then filed a state-court suit; defendants did not answer and a duty judge conducted a default hearing on May 28, 2014 and signed a judgment awarding $92,197.50 to Freeman — the written judgment lacked explicit decretal language naming the defendant(s) cast in judgment.
- Defendants timely raised peremptory exceptions (res judicata and prescription) based on the federal judgment; the state trial court initially granted dismissal, then after Freeman produced the federal amended judgment it granted a new trial and reinstated the May 28 default judgment.
- Freeman moved to amend the May 28 judgment to expressly name Joseph Zara and Zara’s Food Store, Inc.; on Aug. 27, 2015 the trial court entered an amended judgment naming both defendants. Defendants moved for new trial and appealed.
- The appellate court held that adding both defendants by amendment was a substantive change (not permissible under La. C.C.P. art. 1951), vacated both the Aug. 27, 2015 amended judgment and the May 28, 2014 judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 28, 2014 default judgment was a final judgment amendable under La. C.C.P. art. 1951 | Freeman: the May 28 judgment was final and amenable to amendment; amendment was non-substantive | Defendants: the May 28 judgment lacked decretal language and thus was not final or properly amendable | Court treated the May 28 judgment as "final" for analysis but found amendment rules applicable; ultimately vacated both judgments and remanded |
| Whether adding the defendants’ names to the written judgment under Art. 1951 was a permissible phrasing correction or a substantive amendment | Freeman: amendment merely reflected duty judge’s intent and corrected phraseology (non-substantive) | Defendants: adding parties is substantive and not allowed under Art. 1951; must be by new trial/appeal/nullity | Court held adding both Joseph Zara and Zara’s Food Store, Inc. was a substantive amendment and thus improper under Art. 1951 |
| Whether Cross v. Timber Trails controls (i.e., naming defendants who were referred to collectively is non-substantive) | Freeman relied on Cross to argue amendment was clarifying only | Defendants distinguished Cross: here no defendant was cast in judgment and there was no allocation of fault or indication of joint/solidary liability | Court distinguished Cross and found Cross inapplicable because the original judgment named no defendant and allocated no fault; amendment changed substance |
| Timeliness of defendants’ post-judgment relief and appeal (motion for new trial/appeal deadlines) | Freeman: amendment was non-substantive so appeal/new-trial deadlines ran from May 28, 2014, making defendants’ filings untimely | Defendants: trial court classified amendment as substantive, so motions/appeal were timely | Court agreed amendment was substantive; defendants’ motion for new trial and appeal were timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Bates v. City of New Orleans, 137 So.3d 774 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (outlines limits on Art. 1951 amendments and substantive vs. phraseology distinction)
- Hebert v. Hebert, 351 So.2d 1199 (La. 1977) (written judgment controls over oral reasons; cannot alter substance by invoking judge's oral intent)
- Cross v. Timber Trails Apartments, 949 So.2d 616 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2007) (amendment naming defendants who had been consistently referred to collectively held non-substantive)
- Dubose v. Plant Depot, 933 So.2d 814 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (where defendant identity is fixed with certainty, correcting name may be non-substantive)
- Villaume v. Villaume, 363 So.2d 448 (La. 1978) (an amendment that adds or subtracts from judgment substance is substantive and not permitted under Art. 1951)