Jack Adams v. Rick M. Sutton
2025-C-0026
La. Ct. App.May 1, 2025Background
- Jack Adams and Rick M. Sutton were involved in a business venture operating a jewelry shop and art gallery, managed through entities RJANO Holdings, Inc. and Maison Royale, LLC.
- The business relationship deteriorated, resulting in multiple lawsuits and attorney representation disputes.
- Kim M. Boyle and Phelps Dunbar, LLP represented Adams and the entities, leading to motions for disqualification and contempt based on alleged conflicts of interest.
- On January 31, 2024, the trial court disqualified Boyle and her firm from representing any party, granted a contempt motion, but allowed contempt to be purged by withdrawal.
- Sutton later filed another motion for contempt (Expedited Motion) claiming violation of prior court orders, while a suspensive appeal of the January 31, 2024 judgment was pending.
- The trial court denied an exception for lack of jurisdiction, leading Boyle and Phelps Dunbar to seek appellate review by writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction during suspensive appeal | Trial court retains authority to enforce orders; actions violated prior judgments, providing independent contempt grounds | Trial court is divested of jurisdiction on matters under suspensive appeal; issues in motion were directly connected to appealed order | Trial court erred; had no jurisdiction over contempt arising from appealed judgment |
| Authority of Division L post-consolidation | Division L retained authority to rule on contempt arising from its prior judgments | After consolidation, only Division N could hear contested matters; Division L lacked authority | Division L lacked jurisdiction to consider the Expedited Motion for Contempt |
| Separation of contempt and disqualification issues | Contempt and disqualification are separate; earlier judgments provided multiple bases for contempt | Contempt and disqualification are intertwined and both encompassed in the appealed judgment | Issues were intertwined and both under appeal, further disfavoring trial court jurisdiction |
| Applicability of Article 2088 exceptions | Violations of older judgments unaffected by appeal provide basis for continuing trial court jurisdiction | Enumerated exceptions in Article 2088 are not met here; only matters not affected by appeal are within trial court reach | The matters at issue were directly affected by the suspensive appeal; no exception applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Rivercenter Lessee, L.L.C. v. Robinson, 355 So.3d 1125 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2022) (articulates standard for appellate review of subject matter jurisdiction questions)
- St. Bernard Par. Gov't v. Perniciaro, 364 So.3d 185 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020) (defines subject matter jurisdiction and non-waivability)
- Jackson v. Pfeifer, 156 So.3d 113 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (proper division/judge authority after case consolidation)
- Doe v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 214 So.3d 99 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (interprets La. C.C.P. art. 2088 exceptions for post-appeal trial court jurisdiction)