Bias v. Haley

383 So.3d 175

2023-0281 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/3/23)

Katina C. BIASv,Ronald S. HALEY, Jr., Attorney at Law, Haley & Associates, Attorneys at Law, LLC, and ABC Insurance Company

2023 CA 0281

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: November 3, 2023

On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. State of Louisiana. Docket No. 688116. Honorable Kelly Balfour, Judge Presiding

Jacques F. Bezou, Jacques F. Bezou, Jr., Payton S. Lachney Covington, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee, Katina C. Bias

NaTashia Carter Benoit, Ashley Greenhouse, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants, Ronald S. Haley, Jr., Attorney at Law, Haley & Associ- ates, Attorneys at Law, LLC, and ABC Insurance Company

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

McCLENDON, J.

₂The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion seeking partial summary judgment finding defendants liable to plaintiff for damages caused by legal malpractice. Defendants filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Defendants appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Katina Bias, plaintiff-appellee, filed a verified petition on September 18, 2019 seeking damages for alleged legal malpractice on the part of defendants-appellants, Ronald S. Haley, Jr., Attorney at Law, and Haley & Associates, Attorneys at Law, LLC (collectively, Appellants),¹ for failing to timely file suit asserting her claims of employment discrimination and retaliation. In her petition, Ms. Bias alleged that her former employer, CF Industries, terminated her employment on January 31, 2017. Thereafter, Ms. Bias retained Appellants to prosecute claims against CF Industries on her behalf for discriminating against her on the basis of race and gender, in violation of the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law, LSA-R.S. 23:301, et seq. (LEDL), and for retaliating against her for reporting the misconduct, in violation of Louisiana’s Whistleblower statute, LSA-R.S. 23:967, et seq. Ms. Bias further asserted that although the maximum applicable prescriptive period under the LEDL resulted in a prescriptive date of July 31, 2018, Appellants did not file her discrimination and retaliation suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (Middle District) until August 14, 2018. As a result, the Middle District dismissed Ms. Bias’s discrimination and retaliation claims on the basis of prescription. Moreover, because pleadings filed on Ms. Bias’s behalf by Appellants acknowledged that she received notice of termination on January 31, 2017, the Middle District concluded that amendment of her suit would be futile. Thus, the dismissal of Ms. Bias’s claims was with prejudice.

₃Appellants’ answer, filed November 5, 2019, generally denied the allegations of Ms. Bias’s petition.² However, Appellants admitted the allegations of Paragraph 6, which provided:

On August 14, 2018, Ronald S. Haley, Jr. filed suit on behalf of Ms. Bias against CF Industries, alleging that Ms. Bias had been discriminated against on the basis of race and gender, and alleging that she had been retaliated against by [CF] Industries, for reporting her employer’s misconduct.

On October 5, 2021, Ms. Bias filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, Ms. Bias argued there were no genuine issues of material fact precluding judgment finding Appellants liable to her for the damages sustained as a result of Appellants’ legal malpractice. In support of her motion for summary judgment, Ms. Bias filed Appellants’ answer to her petition for damages and her affidavit, which was accompanied by numerous exhibits. Appellants did not file an opposition to Ms. Bias’s motion for summary judgment.

[1] Ms. Bias’s motion for partial summary judgment came for hearing on March 14, 2022. Appellants made an oral motion to continue the hearing, which the trial court denied. Appellants acknowledged their failure to file an opposition to the motion and requested "an opportunity to speak On the matter," which the trial court agreed to. After hearing arguments of counsel, the trial court granted Ms. Bias’s motion for partial summary judgment.³ The trial court executed a written judgment in conformity with these oral rulings on September 19, 2022.

Appellants filed a motion for new trial and to stay the proceedings on September 21, 2022. Ms. Bias opposed the motion for new trial and to stay. At the October 27, 2022 hearing of the motion, Appellants moved for a continuance on the basis of their counsel’s poor health. The trial court acknowledged Appellants’ counsel was in poor health, but ₄found no reason to continue the hearing because the motion did not raise issues warranting a new trial. Thus, the trial court denied both the motion for new trial and the motion to continue. The trial court granted the motion to stay proceedings until post-trial relief had been adjudicated. On November 4, 2022, the trial court executed a written judgment in conformity with these oral rulings.

[2] Appellants filed a motion to appeal referencing both the trial court’s September 19, 2022 judgment granting Ms. Bias’s motion for partial summary judgment, and the trial court’s November 4, 2022 judgment denying Appellants’ motion for new trial.⁴ On appeal, Appellants raise the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in granting Bias’s motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of Appellants’ liability.

2. The trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial of Bias’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

3. The trial court erred in denying the oral motion for continuance as to the motion for summary judgment, by counsel who was newly enrolled.

4. The trial court erred in denying Appellants’ motion for continuance as to the motion for new trial due to the physical illness of Appellants’ counsel, which caused an inability to make a presentation.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

[3, 4] Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue. 4 C’s Land Corporation v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, 2021-0121 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/21/21), 332 So.3d 123, 126, writ denied, 2021-01735 (La. 1/19/22), 331 So.3d 322. This court’s appellate jurisdiction extends only to final judgments, which determine the merits in whole or in part, and to interlocutory judgments made expressly appealable by law. See LSA-C.C.P. arts. 1841 and 2083; 4 C’s Land Corporation, 332 So.3d at 126.

[5, 6] A partial summary judgment dispositive of a particular issue or theory of recovery will constitute a partial final judgment that may be immediately appealed during ongoing ₅litigation only if it has been properly designated as final by the trial court pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 1915(B). See LSA-C.C.P. arts. 966(E), 1915(A)(3) and (B); 4 C’s Land Corporation, 332 So.3d at 126. Further, LSA-C.C.P. art. 1918 mandates that a final judgment be identified as such by appropriate language naming the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied, which should be determinable from the judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Chandler v. Cajun Ready Mix Concrete, 2019-1650 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/7/21), 328 So.3d 1189, 1192. In the absence of such decretal language, the ruling is not a valid final judgment, and in the absence of a valid final judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction. Id.

In this matter, the September 19, 2022 judgment (original judgment) on appeal read, in pertinent part, "Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as prayed for." This court issued an April 18, 2023 ex proprio motu Rule to Show Cause Order identifying two apparent defects in the original judgment: first, that the original judgment lacked decretal language providing the specific relief granted as required by LSA-C.C.P. art. 1918 (decretal language defect); and second, that the original judgment lacked a designation of finality for the purposes of an immediate appeal as required by LSA-C.C.P. art. 1915(B) (designation of finality defect). Thus, we remanded the matter for the limited purpose of inviting the trial court to correct the defects in the original judgment.⁵

On May 18, 2023, the appellate record was supplemented with an amended judgment dated January 18, 2023 (first amended judgment). Following review of the first amended judgment, this court issued a July 11, 2023 Interim Order commenting on both of the previously noted' defects.

[7] With respect to the decretal language defect, the Interim Order noted that the first amended judgment granted Ms. Bias’s motion for summary judgment "as prayed for." Noting that the relief granted could not be determined without reference to other pleadings in the record, we remanded the matter a second time for the correction of the ₆decretal language de- fect. The appellate record was supplemented with an amended judgment dated August 14, 2023 (second amended judgment) on August 21, 2023, which contained language finding Appellants "liable for legal malpractice against [Ms. Bias]." As the relief granted can be determined without reference to other pleadings, this language constitutes sufficient decretal language to comply with LSA-C.C.P. art. 1918.

[8] Regarding the designation of finality defect, the July 11, 2023 Interim Order noted that, while the first amended judgment contained an LSA-C.C.P. art. 1915(B) designation of finality, "the propriety of the [LSA-C.C.P.] art. 1915(B) certification is reserved." While the first and second amended judgments each contained an LSA-C.C.P. art. 1915(B) designation of finality, the trial court’s designation is not determinative of this court’s jurisdiction. Thus, before considering the merits of this appeal, we must also address the propriety of the LSA-C.C.P. art. 1915(B) designation. See...