Estis v. Mills

318 So.3d 449

Catherine J. ESTIS, Samuel C. Estis and Thuy P. Estis, Appellants

v.Clifton L. MILLS, Kimberly M. Mills, Twin Stalks, Inc., Cole Mills Planting, Inc., Little Angola Payroll Partnership, and Clak, Inc., Appellees

No. 53,852-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered April 14, 2021

BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, LLP, By: Steven B. Loeb, Jacob E. Roussel, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Appellants

COTTON, BOLTON, HOYCHICK & DOUGHTY, L.L.P., By: John B. Hoychick, Rayville, Counsel for Appellees

Before COX, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ.

COX, J.

This suit arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court, Richland Parish, Louisiana. Plaintiffs, Catherine J. Estis, Samuel C. Estis, and Thuy P. Estis, ("the Appellants") brought suit against Clifton and Kimberly Mills ("the Appellees") for the wrongful killing and disposal of the Appellants’ German Shepherd. On appeal, the Appellants argue that the district court erred in permitting the Appellees to amend their original answer to now include an affirmative defense of immunity pursuant to La. R.S. 3:2654, which would relieve the Appellees of liability. Further, the Appellants contend that the district court erred in granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, asserting that there remain genuine issues of material fact, and notwithstanding liability for the death of the dog, the court erred in dismissing the Appellees’ claim for conversion.

FACTS

The facts of this case originate from an incident previously brought before this Court, which arose out of the shooting, killing, and disposal of the Appellants’ ten-month-old German Shepherd. See , Estis v. Mills , 52, 820 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19) 276 So. 3d 1117. The parties to this case were neighbors whose property was separated by an enclosed pasture in which the Appellees used to house their horses. The Appellees alleged that despite repeated requests to the Appellants to keep their dogs out of their pasture, the dogs would nevertheless enter the pasture and harass their horses and other animals. On August 22, 2017, after Mr. Mills discovered that the Appellants’ German Shepherd was in the pasture with his horses, he retrieved his gun and subsequently shot, killed, and disposed of the dog.

After this incident, the Appellants filed suit against the Appellees seeking damages arising from the shooting, killing, and subsequent disposal of the dog's body. The Appellants alleged that Mr. Mills intentionally shot the dog, failed to disclose this information, and disposed the body in Bayou Lafourche, approximately ten miles away from the Appellants’ property. On June 28, 2018, the Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking immunity under the provisions of La. R.S. 3:2654.¹ On December 6, 2018, the district court granted the motion in favor of the Appellees and the initial appeal to this court was filed. On appeal, the Appellants argued that the Appellees waived the immunity under the statute by failing to affirmatively plead the defense in their answer or any subsequent pleadings.

In response, to this appeal, this Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case, opining that because the immunity had not been affirmatively pled, as required by law, the protections of the immunity statute had been waived because the affirmative defense was not specifically pled in the answer. After this Court's ruling, the Appellants sought and obtained permission from the district court to amend their answer and affirmatively plead the protections of La. R.S. 3:2654. The Appellees then filed another motion for summary judgment, asserting that Mr. Mills was entitled to shoot and kill the dog under the protections of the immunity statute and the district court ruled in their favor. The Appellants now appeal the district court's decision.

DISCUSSION

Amendment of Pleadings

In their first assignment of error, the Appellants contend that the Appellees’ amended answer was erroneously granted because this Court previously determined that the Appellants waived the affirmative defense under La. R.S. 3:2654 by failing to plead it in their original answer. In particular, the Appellants argue that appellate court decisions remain the governing law over a case upon remand to the district court. In support of this assertion, the Appellants cite 1205 St. Charles Condo. Assoc. Inc. v. Abel , 2018-0566 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/19/18), 262 So. 3d 919, 927, in which the court found that an appellate "court's disposition on [an] issue considered becomes the ‘law of the case,’ foreclosing re-litigation of that issue either in the trial court on remand or in the appellate court on a later appeal." Id .

The Appellants contend that the purpose of the "law of the case doctrine is to avoid re-litigation of the same issue," State ex rel. Div. of Admin., Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of La. , 2013-0375 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/8/14), 146 So. 3d 556, and the "policy applies to parties who were parties to the case when the former decision was rendered and who thus had their day in court." State v. Mark , 2013-1110 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/30/14), 146 So. 3d 886, 898 writ denied 14-1851 (La. 4/10/15), 163 So. 3d 807. It is therefore the Appellees’ position that the "law of the case principle relates to ... the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at trial on remand," Mercato Elisio, L.L.C. v. City of New Orleans , 2018-0081 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/21/18), 259 So. 3d 1235, 1240, and any further proceedings must, therefore, align with the decision rendered by the appellate court.

The Appellants rely on this Court's previous decision in Estis, supra , which held that "[i]mmunity is an affirmative defense that must be specifically ple[d] by a defendant or it is deemed waived," and because the Appellants "failed to affirmatively plead La. R.S. 3:2654, those protections are waived." Id . This ruling was to be "remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." Id . From this decision, the Appellants assert that this Court found that the Appellees were barred from the ability to subsequently assert the affirmative defense in all future proceedings in this case. We disagree with the Appellees’ interpretation of this holding.

The law of the case doctrine is a discretionary guide that relates to the binding force of a trial judge's ruling during the later stages of trial, the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at trial on remand, and the rule that an appellate court ordinally will not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case. Welch v. Willis-Knighton Pierremont, 45,554 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/17/10) 56 So. 3d 242, writs denied , 11-0075, 11-0109 (La. 2/25/11), 58 So. 3d 457, 459. It applies to all prior rulings or decisions of an appellate court or supreme court in the same case, not merely those which arise from the full appeal. Id. ; See, Lowe v. Lowe, 244 So. 3d 670 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17).

Although the Appellees correctly noted that the law of the case doctrine, as it applies to the present case, concerns the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at trial on remand such that any further proceedings must align with the decision rendered by the appellate court, we note that the doctrine is not an inflexible law. However, the assumption that once an appellate court issues its decision in a case and makes conclusions of law, its instructions, on remand, continue in accordance with those instructions in all subsequent proceedings in the same case, is not always an absolute. For example, with respect to amendments, the law takes a liberal approach in allowing pleadings to be amended to promote the interests of justice. Reeder v. North , 97-0239 (La. 10/21/97), 701 So. 2d 1291.

Trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether to allow amendment to pleadings. Thus, a trial court's ruling on an issue will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Coleman v. Lowery Carnival Co. , 295 So. 3d 427 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/22/20), writ denied , 20-00594 (La. 9/23/20), 301 So. 3d 1179. Amendments of pleadings are generally allowed, provided the mover is acting in good faith, the amendment is not sought as a delaying tactic, the opponent will not be unduly prejudiced and trial of the issues will not be unduly delayed. Id . at 436. The decision to allow an amendment is within the trial court's broad discretion. Id .

First, we resolve any potential ambiguity with the interpretation of this Court's last rendered opinion associated with this case. In Estis, supra , this Court determined that La. R.S. 3:2654 is an affirmative defense and must therefore be pled in the affirmative, otherwise its protections are waived. At the time of the original appeal, the Appellees failed to satisfy this requirement; therefore, this Court concluded that the immunity defense was waived limited to the pleadings brought before the Court at that time. This Court then stated that the case should be "remanded for further proceedings consistent with th[e] opinion," to which the Appellees assert relates to the dismissal of the protections under the immunity statute in future proceedings.

To this, we clarify that the Appellees only waived their immunity under La. R.S. 3:2654 at the time the original appeal was made because the pleadings making up the original appeal failed to affirmatively plead the protections of the statute. We are not of the opinion that the Appellees forever lost the ability to subsequently assert the defense at a later time; rather they only lost the right at the time of the former appeal. This Court's instruction that the case should be remanded on appeal in a manner consistent with the opinion relates not to the waiver of the affirmative defense; instead, it was directed toward the genuine issues of material fact that remained as a result of the waiver, which was to be addressed at trial.

Second, we acknowledge that on remand, the trial court retained full discretion to permit the amendment of any...