Moon Landrieu

In this case, attorney James M. Williams and his law firms filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that they had not committed legal malpractice while representing Nicholas Manzella in a federal racial discrimination suit against UPS that was dismissed on summary judgment and whose appeal was later dismissed for failure to file a timely brief. Manzella had filed a separate malpractice suit and raised exceptions to the declaratory action, which the trial court denied before granting summary judgment to the attorneys on the ground that Manzella could not establish a prima facie case of malpractice. The appellate court examined the appropriateness of using a declaratory judgment proceeding in this tort setting, noting concerns about due process, piecemeal litigation, and the policy goals of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, engineer David C. Flettrich sued Touro Infirmary and its law firm Sher Garner for unpaid fees of nearly $99,000 after providing expert consulting services in Touro's litigation over design defects in a nursing home project. Flettrich had been retained through the law firm, which directed his work and instructed him to bill Touro, and he had performed similar services for the firm on prior matters. The trial court granted summary judgment to the law firm, finding it was a disclosed agent that did not bind itself personally or exceed its authority. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the firm exceeded the scope of its agency authority from Touro, particularly given the limited payment made and the firm's prior use of Flettrich's services, and remanded for further proceedings.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Ella Bradstreet's suit against Escrow Services, Inc. (ESI), the administrator of an Installment Option Agreement for the purchase of property in New Orleans, after the seller terminated the contract following the plaintiff's payment defaults. Bradstreet alleged defects in the agreement's preparation and administration, including failures to register it as a bond for deed, use a licensed escrow agent, and obtain required mortgage guarantees. The trial court sustained ESI's exception of prematurity and dismissed the suit in favor of arbitration; the appellate court affirmed. The core reasoning was that the agreement contained an express arbitration clause requiring all controversies among the owner, purchaser, and administrator to be resolved through binding arbitration, thereby precluding judicial proceedings until that process was followed.

propertyprocedure

The case involved an appeal by New Orleans Police Officer Tamara Grant challenging a Civil Service Commission decision that upheld her 120-day suspension and termination by the NOPD. Grant had been disciplined for committing battery on two fellow officers, engaging in unprofessional conduct, misrepresenting facts in an internal investigation, and obstructing another officer's attempt to arrest her former fiancé based on outstanding warrants. The incident occurred in a police station parking lot when Grant physically interfered, used profanity, and threatened officers while they detained the suspect. The court reviewed the record and found sufficient evidence supported the CSC's conclusions that the violations occurred and that the penalties were appropriate under departmental rules on battery, truthfulness, professionalism, and obstructing an officer.

criminal lawlabor & employment

The case involved Captain Phillip J. Krupp's appeal of his termination by the New Orleans Department of Fire after a random drug test returned positive for cocaine metabolites. Krupp challenged the Civil Service Commission's decision upholding the termination, arguing flaws in the urine collection process, including failure to follow all SAMHSA guidelines on retaining samples and documenting observers, which he claimed broke the chain of custody. The court affirmed the Commission's ruling, finding that the procedural deviations were not fatal to the evidence and that testimony supported the conclusion Krupp had attempted to alter his initial sample. The positive test result provided legal cause for termination under the department's substance abuse policy, and the decision was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned claims by Ronald and Paula Lutz, Jordan Operations, Inc., and Lutz Oil & Gas, LLC against attorney Francis Jay Lobrano and his firm for alleged negligent legal advice in the 2003 acquisition of an oil and gas leasehold interest from Pride Energy Company. The trial court granted the Lobrano defendants' exception of no right of action and dismissed the claims of the Lutzes and Jordan with prejudice, allowing only Lutz Oil's claims to continue. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the dismissed plaintiffs had a right of action because they had established an attorney-client relationship with Lobrano before Lutz Oil was formed and had alleged distinct personal losses from the malpractice. The court reasoned that the attorney-client relationship turns on the client's subjective belief and that the petition sufficiently stated a cause of action for legal malpractice with resulting damages to those plaintiffs.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryproperty