130 So. 3d 473
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Siemens obtained a jury verdict against Revo Water Systems, LLC and Jacob J. David for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair trade practices, awarding $1,482,000 in damages on June 24, 2010.
- Siemens sought a permanent injunction and an award of attorney fees and expenses; the court granted injunction and fees totaling $122,187.11 at a hearing on August 12, 2010.
- Judgments were proposed by both sides; the August 20, 2010 judgment on the jury verdict did not include the fees or injunction but stated collateral issues would be decided later.
- Revo and David appealed the August 20, 2010 jury verdict judgment; collateral issues remained unresolved in that appeal.
- Siemens moved for execution of judgment on December 13, 2012 to memorialize the collateral issues (attorney fees and permanent injunction) already litigated, resulting in a February 26, 2013 judgment awarding the injunction and fees.
- Revo and David appeal the February 26, 2013 judgment, arguing res judicata bars it and that the judgment is untimely; the court affirms, finding an exceptional-circumstances exception to res judicata and no untimeliness, and awards Siemens $5,000 in appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar the February 26, 2013 judgment? | Siemens argues exceptional circumstances prevent bar. | Revo and David contend res judicata bars the collateral-issues judgment. | Res judicata does not bar due to exceptional-circumstances exception. |
| Did the court err by applying exceptional circumstances to allow the collateral-issues judgment? | Circumstances show litigation of collateral issues and agreement on fees, justifying exception. | No exceptional circumstances to override res judicata. | Exceptional circumstances exist; exception applied. |
| Is Siemens' motion for execution timely under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1911? | Timeliness is proper; the judgment was signed within a reasonable time. | Argues untimeliness under 1911 as to signing. | No untimeliness; timely execution. |
| Should Siemens receive appellate attorney fees for defending the appeal? | Appellate work is compensable when trial-level award exists and is upheld. | Not disputed beyond initial award; no additional fees necessarily warranted. | Award of $5,000 in appellate attorney fees affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond B Constr. Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 845 So.2d 429 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) (attorney fees in same transaction may be separate but not barred by res judicata)
- Brouillard v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 657 So.2d 231 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1995) (exception to res judicata to balance justice in exceptional circumstances)
- Ken Lawler Builders, Inc. v. Delaney, 840 So.2d 672 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2003) (res judicata bar where judgment did not reserve fees; distinguished here by explicit reservation)
- Jackson v. Iberia Parish Gov’t, 732 So.2d 517 (La. 1999) (inherent obligation to raise claims; absence of failure to raise fees)
- Fogleman v. Meaux Surface Prot., Inc., 58 So.3d 1057 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2011) (res judicata de novo review for legal question)
- Owens v. Book, 819 So.2d 484 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2002) (principles on final judgments and res judicata)