309 So.3d 754
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Walter J. and Edna R. Horrell sued (filed Nov. 2, 2017) alleging they were corporeal possessors of immovable property and seeking damages and possessory relief after an eviction (Nov. 17, 2016).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment (Oct. 9, 2018), arguing the claims were barred by res judicata based on extensive prior litigation between the parties; they asked the court to take judicial notice of prior decisions but attached no suit record or other documentary evidence.
- Plaintiffs opposed, raising exceptions including insufficiency of service, prematurity, vagueness, and res judicata; argument emphasized defendants’ failure to comply with documentary requirements (La. C.C.P. art. 966 and local Rule 9.10).
- Trial court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice (Jan. 14, 2019); plaintiffs’ new-trial motion was denied and they appealed.
- The First Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the defendants failed to meet the movant’s documentary burden for summary judgment or for proving res judicata; judicial notice alone was insufficient without the prior suit record or other admissible documents.
- Court vacated the judgment, taxed appeal costs to defendants, and noted defendants may refile a properly supported motion or a peremptory exception; sanctions remain available at trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants proved res judicata on summary judgment | Horrell: defendants did not submit the prior suit record or admissible documents, so genuine issues remain | Alltmont et al.: prior litigation and final appellate decisions dispose of the claim; court may take judicial notice | Held: defendants failed to meet summary-judgment documentary burden; res judicata not established on this record |
| Whether judicial notice of prior appellate decisions can substitute for filing the prior suit record | Horrell: judicial notice of decisions is insufficient without the underlying suit record and admissible documents | Defendants: requests judicial notice of prior judgments and decisions as dispositive proof | Held: judicial notice alone is insufficient in support of a summary-judgment dismissal for res judicata; the suit record or admissible documents must be filed |
| Whether defendants complied with La. C.C.P. art. 966 and local Rule 9.10 documentary requirements | Horrell: defendants’ memorandum lacked documentary references and did not attach evidence proving undisputed facts | Defendants: argued prior final decisions render facts undisputed and asked court to take judicial notice | Held: defendants failed to comply with art. 966(A)(4) and Rule 9.10; memorandum without supporting admissible documents is inadequate |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment dismissing claims with prejudice | Horrell: grant was erroneous because no admissible evidence supported res judicata on summary judgment | Defendants: grant was proper given extensive prior litigation and appellate finality | Held: trial court erred; judgment vacated and case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (elements required to invoke res judicata)
- Bovie v. St. John the Baptist Parish, Dept. of Streets & Roads, 125 So.3d 1158 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (res judicata analysis)
- R.G. Claitor's Realty Co. v. Juban, 391 So.2d 394 (La. 1980) (res judicata may be raised by motion for summary judgment when documentary proof is provided)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 764 So.2d 37 (La. 2000) (moving party’s burden and nonmovant response under summary judgment rule)
- Middleton v. Livingston Timber, Inc., 57 So.3d 590 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2011) (court must examine prior suit record when res judicata is asserted)
- Union Planters Bank v. Commercial Capital Holding Corp., 907 So.2d 129 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2005) (judicial notice of another court’s suit record is insufficient on appeal without the record)
- Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Rivera, 996 So.2d 534 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (local rule/memorandum compliance and documentary proof requirements)