86 So. 3d 639
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Holthausen plaintiffs filed Petition for Damages and Breach of Contract against DMartino, LLC, Martins, and Decker over lease agreements and non-compete clauses.
- Plaintiffs alleged 2004 lease for Hemline stores in Houston and 2008 five-year leases including non-compete provisions prohibiting women’s clothing business in Houston during term and one year after.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to deem the 2008 Non-Compete Clauses invalid under Texas law; plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment under Louisiana law.
- Trial court orally granted defendants’ motion, denied plaintiffs’ motion, and held the Non-Compete Clauses unenforceable as a matter of law.
- Plaintiffs sought written reasons; trial court denied, then writ relief was denied by the Fifth Circuit in 2010 for lack of supervisory jurisdiction.
- In 2011 plaintiffs moved to vacate and for partial summary/ declaratory judgment; trial court denied and designated the ruling final for appeal, prompting this de-volutive appeal which was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal properly before the court on finality/jurisdiction? | Holthausen argues the judgment is final and appealable. | DMartino contends the ruling is interlocutory and not a final, appealable judgment. | Court lacks appellate jurisdiction; appeal dismissed. |
| Should the Non-Compete Clauses be enforceable under Texas or Louisiana law? | Louisiana law applies; Non-Compete enforceable. | Texas law applies; Non-Compete unenforceable. | Merits not reached due to jurisdictional dismissal. |
| Did the trial court properly apply the law-of-the-case doctrine in denying vacatur? | Law-of-the-case requires vacatur and reconsideration under different law. | No change in law or facts; doctrine supports denial. | Court did not reach merits; jurisdictional ruling controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ware v. Mumford, 875 So.2d 885 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2004) (denial of summarized judgment certification not an appealable final judgment; article 968 controls)
- Berman v. De Chazal, 717 So.2d 658 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1998) (certification de novo; abuse of discretion defeats appeal)
- Motorola, Inc. v. Associated Indem. Corp., 867 So.2d 715 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2008) (appellate review of jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Boudreaux v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 815 So.2d 7 (La. 2002) (jurisdictional principles; finality and interlocutory review)