Danielle's Legacy, L.L.C. v. Caring Angel Connection, Inc. dba Caring Angels Connections and Henry Davison and Wanda Davison ( 2022 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2022 CA 0265
DANIELLE' S LEGACY, L.L.C.
1
VERSUS
CARING ANGELS CONNECTION, INC., D/B/ A CARING ANGELS
CONNECTIONS, HENRY DAVISON, AND WANDA DAVISON
Judgment rendered DEC 2 9 2022
On Appeal from the
19" Judicial District Court
East Baton Rouge Parish
State of Louisiana
No. C663375
Judge Donald Johnson, Presiding
George W. Britton, III Attorneys for Appellants/ Defendants
Louis G. Scott Caring Angels Connection, Inc., d/ b/ a
Monroe, Louisiana
Caring Angels Connections, Henry
Davison, and D. F. A., L.L. C.
Glen R. Petersen Attorney for Appellee/ Plaintiff
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Danielle' s Legacy, L,L.C.
BEFORE: MCDONALD, McCLENDON, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
MCI f
HOLDRIDGE, J.
Defendant, D.F. A., L. L.C., appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of
plaintiff, Danielle' s Legacy, L.L.C. We reverse and remand.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff is an entity that contracts with Medicaid medical providers who
have not been paid by the state program to assist the providers in recovering funds
owed to them by the Louisiana Medicaid Program. Plaintiff filed this breach of
contract lawsuit against Caring Angels Connection, Inc., d/ b/ a Caring Angels
Connections ( Caring Angels), Henry Davison, and D.F. A., L.L.C, also doing
business as Caring Angels Connections ( D.F.A.)' Plaintiff alleged that it entered
into a contract with Caring Angels on September 26, 2017, which provided for a
one- third contingency fee to be paid to plaintiff in connection with any funds
plaintiff successfully recovered for Caring Angels. Plaintiff further alleged that
Mr. Davison, the purported owner of Caring Angels, signed the contract on behalf
of D.F. A. According to plaintiff, as a result of its efforts, the sum of $69, 383. 32
was recovered for Caring Angels and was paid to D. F. A. On October 2, 2017,
plaintiff sent Caring Angels an invoice in the amount of $23, 127. 77 representing
the amount it claimed it was owed by virtue of the one-third contingency contract.
However, D.F. A. and its owner, Mr. Davison, refused to pay the amount allegedly
owed to plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the contract. In this lawsuit,
plaintiff sought to recover $ 23, 127. 77, reasonable attorney' s fees, costs, and
interest from D.F. A. and Mr. Davison.
An answer was filed by the defendants, and D. F. A. filed a peremptory
exception raising the objection of no right of action. Therein, D.F. A. submitted
that to the extent the contract legally existed, plaintiff had no right of action against
Plaintiff originally named Wanda Davison as a party defendant but later stipulated to her dismissal, Further, although D. F. A. was not named in
the original petition, plaintiff later filed an amending petition adding D. F. A. as a party defendant.
2
D.F. A. because it was not a party to the contract in question, nor was it even
mentioned in the contract. Additionally, D. FA. asked that the contract be declared
null and void, urging that the contract was obtained by fraud, duress, and mistakes
caused by plaintiff' s agents.
On August 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking
judgment in the amount of $23, 127. 77, legal interest from the date of the demand,
and costs of the proceedings. Plaintiff submitted evidence in support of the
motion.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the defendants
contested the admissibility of plaintiffs evidence and also submitted evidence in
opposition to the motion.2
On March 1, 2021, the trial court entered judgment denying plaintiffs
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff requested that the court file reasons for
denying the motion. On April 20, 2021, the trial court issued reasons for denying
the motion for summary judgment, finding that there existed a myriad of issues of
law and fact surrounding the transaction at the core of the litigation, which could
not be decided summarily. There was insufficient evidence, the court concluded,
to find as a matter of law that plaintiff performed under the contract, that plaintiff
recovered any money on behalf of D.F. A., or to calculate compensation or
damages, if any was owed. Additionally, the court noted that Mr. Davison raised
the issue of fraud on the part of the plaintiff, which would void the contract if
proven.
Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the denial of its motion for summary
judgment. Therein, plaintiff argued that the court overlooked documents submitted
by plaintiff in connection with the motion for summary judgment. In support of
the reconsideration motion, plaintiff filed two exhibits that were filed in connection
We pretermit discussion of the documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment since the trial court denied the motion and a supervisory writ was not taken to this court.
3
with the initial motion for summary judgment, as well as two additional exhibits
which had been " mistakenly omitted" from the evidence plaintiff filed with the
motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the
motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff' s motion for summary judgment.
In a judgment signed on September 24, 2021, the trial court entered judgment
against D.F. A. in the amount of $ 23, 127. 77, court costs, legal interest, and
reasonable attorney' s fees as contractually set forth, to be set by the court upon
presentation by plaintiff and its attorney of an accounting as to the fees believed to
be due and reasonable.
D.F. A. appealed, arguing in four assignments of error that the trial court
erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. We agree that the trial court
committed legal error in reconsidering its previous denial of a motion for summary
judgment and then rendering a final summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.
The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a motion for
reconsideration with respect to any judgment. While many courts have considered
such a motion as a motion for new trial ( See, e. g., Lexington Land Development,
L.L.C. v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 2020- 0622 ( La. App. I" Cir. 5125121), 327 So. 3d
8, 17, writ denied, 2021- 01194 ( La. 11117121), 327 So. 3d 996), to do so in this case
would be incorrect since a motion for new trial may only be filed from a final
judgment. A motion for a new trial is not a proper procedural vehicle to challenge
the propriety of an interlocutory ruling. Allstate Insurance Company v.
Mohamadian, 2009- 1126 ( La. App. I` Cir. 2117110), 35 So. 3d 1118, 1I21.
Without question, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory
ruling. Id. Once the trial court denied plaintiff' s motion for summary judgment,
plaintiff's remedies were to seek review by supervisory review of that ruling or to
re -urge the motion for summary judgment with the same documents or to file a
4
new motion for summary judgment, with new documents, subject to all of the
procedural rules applicable to a motion for summary judgment. See La. C. C. P.
arts. 966 and 968; Allstate Insurance Company, 35 So. 3d at 1121; Magallanes v.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 2009- 0605 ( La. App. 4" Cir. 10/ 14109), 23
So. 3d 985, 988- 89.
We recognize that a court may reconsider a granting of a partial motion for
summary judgment in cases where new documents are discovered since the
rendering of the prior judgment and the partial judgment was not certified as final.
In such cases, the grant of the partial judgment would be reversed, and the parties
would conduct further proceedings before the trial court. See Zapata v. Seal,
2020- 01148 ( La. 9130121), 330 So. 3d 175, 178- 79. However, there is no procedure
provided for in La. C.C. P. art. 966 that would allow a party to file a motion to
reconsider a prior denial of a summary judgment, and to file new documents with
the motion that were " mistakenly omitted" from the original motion. If a final
judgment is to be rendered against a party that deprives that party of its right to a
trial, the proper motion and procedures mandated by Article 966 must be followed.
Therefore, we reverse the trial court' s judgment granting plaintiff' s motion
for reconsideration of the denial of its motion for summary judgment and granting
plaintiff' s motion for summary judgment. Because we find procedural error by the
trial court in the granting of the motion for summary judgment, we do not reach the
substantive assignments of error raised by the appellant. We remand the case to
the trial court for appropriate proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Costs
of this appeal are assessed against plaintiff, Danielle' s Legacy, LLC.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
5