Masita v. Maumoulides

341 So.3d 11

Anthony MASITA

v.John MAUMOULIDES,

Lakelots, Inc.; Intrepid, Inc.; One Consort International, LLC; Lake Ramsey Development and St. Tammany Parish

Anthony Misita and Glenn and Linda Torres

v.The St. Tammany Parish Government

2020 CA 0952, 2020 CA 0953

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: NOVEMBER 15, 2021

Rehearing Denied November 28, 2021

Rehearing Denied November 29, 2021

Rehearing Denied January 11, 2022

Louis R. Koerner, Jr., New Orleans, Louisiana, Pierre V. Miller, II, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Anthony Misita and Glenn and Linda Torres

Thomas Hebert Huval, Covington, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants-Appellees, John Mamoulides, Lakelots, Inc.,

Thomas Hebert Huval, Covington, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants-Appellees, John Mamoulides, Lakelots, Inc., Intrepid, Inc., Lake Ramsey, Development, Artesian Utility, Company, Inc., David Guidry

Morgan J. Wells, Jr., Evan J. Godofsky, Metairie, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, One Consort International, LLC

Kelly M. Rabalais, Covington, Louisiana, Angel L. Byrum, Deborah Spiess Henton, Mandeville, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, St. Tammany Parish Government

Thomas P. Anzelmo, Sr., Kevin P. Kress, Katherine L. Swartout, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants-Appellees, St. Tammany Parish, Paul Carroll, Kevin Davis, Joey Lobrano, Brian Fortson, James A. (Red) Thompson

Willard O. Lape, III, Covington, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee, Homeowners Association of Lake Ramsey, Inc. (HALRI)

Bailey D. Morse, Sam Joseph Collett, Jr., John R. Walker, Covington, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Southeast Investments, LLC

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., WELCH, CHUTZ, WOLFE, and BURRIS,³ JJ.

CHUTZ, J.

Plaintiffs-appellants, Anthony Misita, Glenn Torres, and Torres's wife, Linda, appeal the trial court's January 2, 2020 judgment that granted (1) a motion to strike plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment; (2) a motion for summary judgment, in part, in favor of defendant-appellee, St. Tammany Parish Government (STPG) and individual STPG representatives defendants-appellees, Paul Carroll, Kevin Davis, Joey Lobrano, Brian Fortson,⁴ and James A. "Red" Thompson, dismissing detrimental reliance claims against STPG and all claims against the individual STPG representative defendants; and (3) a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, John Mamoulides and David Guidry, dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims against them. Additionally, plaintiffs seek review of two additional rulings, rendered on April 19, 2018 and August 5, 2019, which twice denied them leave to file fourth amendments to their petition. After review, we affirm the April 19, 2018 and August 5, 2019 rulings; affirm in part and reverse in part the January 2, 2020 judgment; and remand this matter for additional proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This litigation involves protracted proceedings arising from claims of an alleged manipulation of the natural hydrology of the Lake Ramsey area of St. Tammany Parish and the resultant flooding of the land upon which plaintiffs work and reside. For purposes of this appeal, we limit our focus to the facts necessary for a disposition of the complaints raised in this appeal.

According to the petition and the undisputed evidence, Major Lane is a cul-de-sac, with Misita's property located adjacent to the north and the Torreses’ property located south of Major Lane. The eastern boundary of the Torreses’ property adjoins the western boundary of Phase IV of the Lake Ramsey Subdivision while the eastern boundary of Misha's property adjoins the western property line of Phase IV-A of the Lake Ramsey Subdivision. Misita's property and Phase IV-A are separated by a drainage/lateral canal. It is undisputed that the drainage lateral/canal is known as Stewart Road Lateral 1 (SRL-1). SRL-1 allows surface water to flow from the southeastern comer of Misita's property in a northerly direction for approximately 1600 feet to Stewart Road, where it turns east, skirts the northern side of Lake Ramsey, then proceeds south along the eastern side of Lake Ramsey until it joins back to Horse Branch Tributary of the Tchefuncte River.

Misita originally filed this lawsuit on October 2, 2013, alleging damages from flooding to his property located at 13185 Major Lane in St. Tammany Parish where he resides and operates a horse farm. He named as defendants John Mamoulides and One Consort International, LLC (OCI), among others, as the alleged developers of the land located to his east, averring that they caused his property to flood through violations of a servitude of natural drainage and commissions of torts. Misita claimed that since he moved onto the property and with the development of Phases IV and IV-A of the Lake Ramsey Subdivision, he has experienced increased flooding. Misita also averred that Mamoulides and defendant David Guidry, a subcontractor of OCI who occasionally acted as OCI's representative, made promises to him to stop the flooding of the Major Lane properties.⁵

Additionally, Misita named as defendants STPG and representatives Carroll, Davis, Lobrano, Fortson, and Thompson (collectively the STPG defendants), averring that they had committed acts for which they were liable to him, including allegations that the STPG defendants acknowledged the Major Lane properties’ flooding problems and promised to take action to fix them.

By amendment to Misita's petition, the Torreses were added as party plaintiffs in this lawsuit. According to plaintiffs’ allegations, the Torreses reside at 13184 Major Lane in St. Tammany Parish and, like Misita, have experienced worsening flooding with continued development of Phase IV and IV-A in the Lake Ramsey Subdivision.

The STPG defendants, OCI, Mamoulides, and Guidry answered plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Thereafter, they each filed a peremptory exception raising an objection of prescription. The STPG defendants and OCI subsequently stipulated that "they [would] only seek a dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims for tort damages" in conjunction with the prescription exception. After a hearing, in a judgment dated April 16, 2018, the trial court sustained the exception "as to any alleged improper acts occurring more than one year prior to the filing of the original [p]etition," but overruled it "as to any alleged improper acts occurring within one year of the filing of the original [p]etition" on October 2, 2013.

On September 30, 2019, the STPG defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of plaintiffs’ claims against them. Also on that date, Mamoulides and Guidry filed their own motion for summary judgment similarly seeking dismissal of all of plaintiffs’ claims against them.⁶ In response, plaintiffs filed opposition memoranda to which the STPG defendants replied.

On October 2, 2019, plaintiffs filed their own motions for partial summary judgment.⁷ The STPG defendants, OCI, Mamoulides, and Guidry filed a joint motion to strike plaintiffs’ untimely motions for partial summary judgment. A motion to continue the trial on the merits from December 2, 2019 to December 5, 2019 was then filed by plaintiffs, seeking additional time for the purpose of making the filing of their motions for partial summary judgment timely.

A hearing was held on all of the motions on October 31, 2019, after which the trial court issued written reasons for its rulings and rendered judgment.⁸ In a judgment signed by the trial court on January 2, 2020, the joint motion to strike plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment was granted and plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance was denied. The motion for summary judgment asserted by the STPG defendants was denied in part⁹ and granted in part, dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims against the individual STPG representative defendants, as well as the detrimental reliance claims against STPG.¹⁰ The motion for summary judgment asserted by Mamoulides and Guidry was granted, dismissing them as parties to plaintiffs’ lawsuit. After the denial of their motion for new trial, plaintiffs devolutively appeal.

II. INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS

Plaintiffs request that we review the trial court's interlocutory rulings denying them leave to file fourth amendments to their petition on two occasions, as well as the trial court's grant of the joint motion of the STPG defendants, OCI, Mamoulides, and Guidry to strike plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment. When an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, the appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse interlocutory rulings prejudicial to him in addition to the review of the final judgment. Judson v. Davis , 2004-1699 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/29/05), 916 So.2d 1106, 1112, writ denied, 2005-1998 (La. 2/10/06), 924 So.2d 167. Since the appealed judgment dismisses multiple defendants, it is a final appealable judgment. See La. C.C.P. art. 1915A(1).¹¹ Thus, as part of plaintiffs’ unrestricted appeal of the January 2, 2020 judgment, we examine plaintiffs’ assertions relative to these interlocutory rulings.

A. Leave to File Fourth Amending and Supplemental Petition

In challenging the denial of two attempted fourth amendments to the petition, plaintiffs maintain that the trial court committed errors of law, suggesting that the STPG defendants, Mamoulides, and Guidry would not have been prejudiced by either of the amendments and that the plaintiffs’ requests were made in good faith. The record shows that plaintiffs’ first attempt to file a fourth amendment to their petition was on February 26, 2018, wherein they sought to reiterate claims for injunctive relief against STPG, OCI, Mamoulides, and Guidry, and add requests for injunctive relief against ten additional defendants, who had become owners of land located in Phase IV-A developed by OCI and upon which they had allegedly constructed homes. Additionally, by this attempted amendment, plaintiffs sought to add claims for...