Stephanie Quintanilla Versus Eric Whitaker; Carlo Ditta, Inc.; And Zurich American Insurance Company

STEPHANIE QUINTANILLA NO. 21-CA-160
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
ERIC WHITAKER; CARLO DITTA, INC.; AND COURT OF APPEAL
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 806-068, DIVISION "I"
HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER, JUDGE PRESIDING
December 01, 2021
ROBERT A. CHAISSON
JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Robert A. Chaisson,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
JUDGMENT VACATED
RAC
SJW
JJM
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
STEPHANIE QUINTANILLA
Cristian P. Silva
William R. Penton, III
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
ERIC WHITAKER, CARLO DITTA, INC., AND ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY
John J. Rabalais
Chad N. Evans
Joseph M. Mouton, II
CHAISSON, J.
In this case arising from an automobile accident, plaintiff Stephanie
Quintanilla appeals a judgment of the trial court granting a Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement filed by defendants Eric Whitaker, Carlo Ditta, Inc., and
Zurich American Insurance Company. For the following reasons, we vacate the
judgment of the trial court.
BACKGROUND
On April 27, 2020, Ms. Quintanilla filed a petition for damages wherein she
alleged that she was injured in a December 5, 2019 automobile accident on Park
Shore Drive in the Parish of Jefferson, when her car was struck by a 2011 Mack
800 driven by Mr. Whitaker, who was driving while in the course and scope of his
employment with Carlo Ditta, Inc..
On October 12, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement wherein they alleged that Ms. Quintanilla, through her attorney of
record, Jahida Lewis-Crawford, consented in writing to a settlement of all claims
against defendants in exchange for a single, lump sum payment of $10,000.00.
Defendants argue that Ms. Quintanilla accepted defendants’ settlement offer in
writing on September 17, 2020.
In opposition to the motion, Ms. Quintanilla argued that the settlement
agreement was never perfected because she had terminated her representation with
Ms. Lewis-Crawford before the settlement was finalized.
A hearing on the motion was held on December 3, 2020, at which time the
court considered arguments of counsel as well as evidence consisting of emails
exchanged between defendants’ counsel and the paralegal to plaintiff’s counsel, a
copy of the termination email and discharge letter sent to Ms. Quintanilla’s
counsel, copies of text messages sent from the paralegal to Ms. Quintanilla, and an
affidavit of the paralegal.
21-CA-160 1
On December 29, 2020, the trial court rendered judgment granting the
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Ms. Quintanilla’s timely appeal
followed.
DISCUSSION
A compromise or settlement is a contract whereby the parties, through
concessions made by one or more of them, settle a dispute or an uncertainty
concerning an obligation or other legal relationship. La. C.C. art. 3071; Chiasson
v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 12-532 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/21/13), 110 So.3d 1147,
1148. A compromise shall be made in writing or recited in open court. La. C.C.
art. 3072. The authority to enter into a compromise must be expressly given. La.
C.C. art. 2997. A party’s counsel of record does not have authority to settle a
client’s claim without the client’s clear and express consent. Coppage v. Transdev
Servs., Inc., 20-0419 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/19/21), 320 So.3d 1206, 1211, writ denied,
21-00549 (La. 6/8/21), 317 So.3d 328. When a trial court rules on a motion to
enforce settlement agreement, it makes a factual determination whether a contract
existed between the parties, and therefore we apply the manifest error or clearly
wrong standard of review. Howard v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 10-
1302 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/27/11), 65 So.3d 697, 699.
At issue in this case is the timing of the termination of Ms. Quintanilla’s
prior counsel and whether any settlement agreement was perfected before the
termination. The evidence in the record indicates that there were communications
via phone and e-mail between defense counsel, the paralegal for Ms. Quintanilla’s
counsel, and Ms. Quintanilla on the morning of September 16, 2020. According to
the affidavit of the paralegal, Ms. Karla Pennington, around 10:30 a.m., Ms.
Quintanilla indicated that she would accept defendants’ offer of $10,000.00. Ms.
Pennington’s affidavit further indicates that around 10:45 a.m. that day, as per Ms.
Lewis-Crawford’s instructions, she was supposed to send an email to defense
21-CA-160 2
counsel confirming Ms. Quintanilla’s acceptance of the offer, but she forgot to hit
the send button. Ms. Pennington did not send an email to defense counsel
confirming Ms. Quintanilla’s acceptance of the offer until 4:31 p.m. on that same
day.
Ms. Pennington also swore in her affidavit that on that same day,
September 16, 2020, at approximately 2:00 p.m., she was at lunch with Ms. Lewis-
Crawford when Ms. Lewis-Crawford received the email with Ms. Quintanilla’s
discharge letter. The email entered into the record confirms that the discharge
letter was sent by Ms. Quintanilla’s new counsel to Ms. Lewis-Crawford on
September 16, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.
The discharge letter, dated September 16, 2020 and signed by Ms.
Quintanilla, stated, “[p]lease be advised that I no longer wish you to represent me
for the automobile accident of December, 2019. Please stop working on my case
and provide my new attorneys … with a copy of our entire file.” Contrary to Ms.
Quintanilla’s termination notice and instructions, the evidence in the record shows
that Ms. Pennington attempted to convey Ms. Quintanilla’s acceptance of the offer
to defense counsel at 4:31 p.m. on that same day, subsequent to Ms. Lewis-
Crawford’s termination.
CONCLUSION
We find that the evidence in the record shows that there was no settlement
agreement in writing during the time that Ms. Lewis-Crawford had express
authority to enter into such an agreement on Ms. Quintanilla’s behalf.
Consequently, we find that the trial court manifestly erred in granting the motion to
enforce the settlement agreement. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the trial
court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
JUDGMENT VACATED
21-CA-160 3
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
DECEMBER 1, 2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
21-CA-160
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER (DISTRICT JUDGE)
WILLIAM R. PENTON, III (APPELLANT) JAHIDA L. LEWIS-CRAWFORD (APPELLEE) JOSEPH M. MOUTON, II (APPELLEE)
LOAN H. DO (APPELLEE)
MAILED
CHAD N. EVANS (APPELLEE) CHARLES AYLES (APPELLEE) CRISTIAN P. SILVA (APPELLANT)
JOHN J. RABALAIS (APPELLEE) KENDRA HARRIS (APPELLEE) ATTORNEY AT LAW
ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1818 MANHATTAN BOULEVARD
1404 GREENGATE DRIVE 1506 WILLIAMS BOULEVARD SUITE 2
SUITE 110 1ST FLOOR HARVEY, LA 70058
COVINGTON, LA 70454 KENNER, LA 70063