Ragas v. Hingle, 146 So. 3d 687

On June 29, 2006 Leon Ragas severely cut his arm using an electric grinder in Buras, Plaquemines Parish post-Katrina; ambulances would not travel that far south. Richard and Rhonda Ragas transported him north and called 911 twice seeking emergency assistance.
Deputies Tassin and Barrios observed the Ragas pickup traveling at high speed on LA-23/LA-28 and pursued with lights and sirens; dispatch reported no emergencies in the area.
The pickup did not initially stop; after pursuit and maneuvers it arrived at the Plaquemines Parish government complex in Port Sulphur where an ambulance awaited and EMTs assisted Leon Ragas.
An altercation in the parking lot ensued: Richard allegedly cursed and resisted arrest; Rhonda allegedly interfered and struck Deputy Tassin. Both were arrested and later issued summonses.
Richard and Rhonda sued multiple defendants (including Plaquemines Parish Government, deputies Tassin and Barrios) alleging torts and §1983 claims. After trial, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed many defendants; at the close of plaintiffs’ case the remaining defendants moved for involuntary dismissal.
The trial court granted involuntary dismissals, finding plaintiffs failed to name the proper municipal entity (the Communications District) and that plaintiffs were not credible; judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether involuntary dismissal was improper	Ragases argued judge was biased and dismissal was wrong	Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to carry burden and identified wrong municipal defendant	Court affirmed dismissal — no bias shown; evidence insufficient and wrong defendant named
Whether Plaquemines Parish Government was proper defendant	Plaintiffs sued the Parish Government for 911/communications failures	Defendants argued claims belong against Plaquemines Parish Communications District (a separate legal entity)	Court held plaintiffs should have named the Communications District, not the Parish Government
Whether plaintiffs’ evidence established claims by preponderance	Plaintiffs relied on their testimony and 911 calls to show wrongdoing	Defendants emphasized conflicting testimony from EMTs and Leon Ragas and relied on lack of dispatch emergency report	Court found plaintiffs not credible and evidence insufficient to meet preponderance standard
Standard for involuntary dismissal in bench trial	Plaintiffs contended trial court applied incorrect standard or prejudged	Defendants asserted trial court properly evaluated evidence without special inferences and applied correct standard	Court applied bench-trial involuntary dismissal standard and deferred to trial court credibility findings; affirmed

Guidry v. City of Rayne Police Dep’t, 26 So.3d 900 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009) (trial court has broad discretion on involuntary dismissal).
Lowe v. Skyjacker Suspensions, 32 So.3d 340 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2010) (motion requires evaluation of evidence by preponderance).
Falgout v. Louis-Jeune, 799 So.2d 610 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (bench-trial dismissal standard differs from jury directed verdict standard).
Williams v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 61 So.3d 48 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (involuntary dismissal requires evaluation without special inferences for either party).
Vintage Wings & Things, LLC v. Toce & Daiy, LLC, 886 So.2d 652 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2004) (dismiss if evidence insufficient by preponderance).
Brooks v. Minnieweather, 86 So.3d 684 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2012) (appellate court will not reverse involuntary dismissal absent manifest error).
Franz v. First Bank Systems, Inc., 868 So.2d 155 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (deference to trier of fact on credibility).
Kraus v. Wheat, 856 So.2d 45 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2003) (credibility determinations will not be disturbed absent manifest error).
Lindsey v. USAA Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 830 So.2d 335 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (findings based on credited testimony are rarely manifestly erroneous).