Palowsky v. Campbell

378 So.3d 226

22-592 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/23)

Stanley R. PALOWSKY, III, Individually, and on Behalf of Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc.

v.Allyson CAMPBELL

NO. 22-CA-592

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

December 14, 2023

ON APPEAL FROM THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JEROME J. BARBERA, III, NUMBER 15-2179

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, STANLEY R. PALOWSKY, III, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Joseph R. Ward, Jr., Covington

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, ALLYSON CAMPBELL Jeffrey M. Landry, Lawrence W. Pettiette, Jr., Shreveport, Christopher G. Forester

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, JUDGE H. STEPHEN WINTERS, JUDGE CARL V. SHARP, JUDGE BENJAMIN JONES, JUDGE J. WILSON RAMBO, AND JUDGE FREDERIC C. AMMAN Jon K. Guice, Monroe

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Marc E. Johnson, and Stephen J. Windhorst

GRAVOIS; J.

₁Stanley R. Palowsky, III, individually and on behalf of Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc. ("AESI"), appeals two judgments of the trial court signed on August 15, 2022. One judgment granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Judge H. Stephens Winters, Judge Frederic C. Amman, and Judge Benjamin Jones, dismissing all claims against them, and granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Judge H. Stephens Winters, Judge Frederic C. Amman, Judge Benjamin Jones, Judge Carl V. Sharp and Judge J. Wilson Rambo on the issue of attorney’s fees only. The second judgment granted Allyson Campbell’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of attorney’s fees only. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

On July 22, 2015, Mr. Palowsky filed an original Petition for Damages in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita, naming as defendant Allyson Campbell, a law clerk employed by the court. Mr. Palowsky alleged in the petition that Ms. Campbell, acting under color of law but outside the course and scope of her employment duties as a law clerk, caused him injury in another suit that Mr. Palowsky was a party to in the same court: Palowsky v. Cork, Docket No. 13-2059, Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita. Specifically, Mr. Palowsky alleged that Ms. Campbell "maliciously and intentionally harmed [Mr.] Palowsky and willfully violated his constitutionally-protected rights to both due process and access to courts in Palowsky v. Cork when she spoliated, concealed, removed, de- stroyed, shredded, withheld, and/or improperly ‘handled’ court documents such as memoranda of law, orders, pleadings, sealed court documents, and chamber copies of pleadings filed with the clerk and hand-delivered to the judge’s office," ₂and Ms. Campbell "maliciously withheld and concealed documents and pleadings in the trial court as well as from the record that was sent to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal for its review of an application for supervisory writs filed by Cork."² (Footnotes omitted.)

Before Mr. Palowsky filed his original petition in the present matter, the judge assigned to handle the Cork case, Judge J. Wilson Rambo, recused himself. The Cork case was then reassigned to Judge Carl V. Sharp. Subsequently, the entire bench of the Fourth Judicial District Court recused itself, and an ad hoc judge was appointed by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

On July 31, 2015, Mr. Palowsky filed a First Supplemental, Amended, and Restated Petition for Damages. He named the following judges from the Fourth Judicial District Court as additional defendants: Chief Judge H. Stephens Winters, Judge Carl V. Sharp, Judge Benjamin Jones, Judge J. Wilson Rambo, and Judge Frederic C. Amman, hereinafter "the defendant judges." Therein, he asserted that Ms. Campbell’s actions constituted "fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, abuse of process, destruction or concealment of public records, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of his rights under the Louisiana Constitution to due process and access to courts." Further, Mr. Palowsky asserted that the ₃defendant judges should be held liable in solido for the damages he suffered as a result of their "aiding and abetting [Ms.] Campbell by allowing her free rein to do as she pleased and then conspiring to conceal [Ms.] Campbell’s acts which compounded the adverse effects of her acts on [Mr.] Palowsky." He alleged that the defendant judges purposely concealed Ms. Campbell’s actions in order to maliciously defraud and harm him and deprive him of due process and access to the courts.

Further, Mr. Palowsky alleged that Ms. Campbell had a history of destroying and/or concealing court documents, and that the defendant judges have covered up such actions to protect Ms. Campbell. He specifically alleged that in 2012, an attorney, Cody Rials, made a complaint to Judge Sharp that Ms. Campbell withheld and/or shredded his proposed judgment in a suit he had pending in the Fourth Judicial District Court. The case was entitled Davidson vs. Davidson, case number 2008-2124. As part of an investigation into the matter, both Judge Sharp in 2012 and subsequently Judge Jones in 2014 interviewed an "eyewitness," later revealed to be Joey Grassi, who heard Ms. Campbell state that she "took great pleasure in shredding [Mr. Rials’ proposed] judg- ment." Mr. Palowsky alleged in the amended petition that the defendant judges’ "affirmative acts" to cover up Ms. Campbell’s "felonious conduct amounts to misprision of a felony."

In response to the First Supplemental, Amended, and Restated Petition, both Ms. Campbell and the defendant judges filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action based on judicial immunity, and motions to strike allegations found in specifically enumerated paragraphs of the petition as redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and/or scandalous. The trial court struck numerous paragraphs from the petition and granted the exceptions of no cause of action on the basis of absolute judicial immunity, dismissing Mr. Palowsky’s suit against Ms. Campbell and the defendant judges with prejudice. On appeal, the First Circuit Court of ₄Appeal found that the trial court incorrectly struck some, but not all, of the paragraphs from the First Supplemental, Amended, and Restated Petition. Additionally, the First Circuit reversed the granting of the exception of no cause of action as to Ms. Campbell and affirmed the granting of the exception of no cause of action as to the defendant judges. Palowsky v. Campbell, 16-1221 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/11/18), 249 So.3d 945, 959-60.

In a per curiam opinion, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit’s judgment insofar as it dismissed Mr. Palowsky’s claims against the defendant judges. In all other regards, the judgment of the First Circuit was affirmed. Palowsky v. Campbell, 184105 (La. 6/26/19), 285 So.3d 466, 467, reh’g denied, 18-1105 (La. 9/6/19), 278 So.3d 358, and cert. denied sub nom. Winters v. Palowsky, — U.S. —, 140 S.Ct. 2570, 206 L.Ed.2d 499 (2020).³

On October 15, 2020, Mr. Palowsky filed a Second Supplemental and Amended Petition for Damages, asserting an additional cause of action against Judge Jones. In response, the defendant judges filed an exception of no cause of action, arguing that the actions taken by Judge Jones as alleged in the amended petition are entitled to the protections of absolute judicial immunity. The trial court sustained the exception of no cause of action, and this Court affirmed the ruling on appeal. Palowsky v. Campbell, 21-358 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/30/22), 337 So.3d 567.

In a Third Supplemental and Amended Petition filed on March 15, 2021, Mr. Palowsky named the defendant judges’ insurer as a defendant; however, because the insurer was incorrectly identified, Mr. Palowsky later filed a Fourth ₅Supplemental and Amended Petition to correctly name Columbia Casualty Company as a defendant.

On April 16, 2021, Ms. Campbell filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law since there is no evidence that she mishandled any documents in the Cork case and there is no statutory or contractual basis for Mr. Palowsky’s claim for attorney’s fees.

On that same date, the defendant judges filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Palowsky cannot meet his burden of proof that Ms. Campbell destroyed or mishandled court documents and that the defendant judges engaged in any conspiracy, cover-up, aiding and abetting, or misprision of such actions. In the motion, the defendant judges argued that Mr. Palowsky never filed five out of the six allegedly missing pleadings, and Judge Rambo, while presiding over the Cork case, received and had the benefit of all documents presented by Mr. Palowsky. The defendant judges argued that there is no evidence that there was any conspiracy or "meeting of the minds" between the defendant judges and Ms. Campbell to cover up or conceal any alleged document mishandling. They asserted that Mr. Palowsky’s speculation and unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, and accordingly, they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, the defendant judges argued that Mr. Palowsky has no statutory or contractual basis for his claim for attorney’s fees.

In a combined opposition to both motions for summary judgment, Mr. Palowsky argued that though there may not be direct evidence to show that Ms. Campbell destroyed court documents in the Cork case, there is circumstantial evidence that would lead a fact finder to conclude that she destroyed and/or mishandled the documents, causing delays in the Cork case, and that the defendant judges concealed her actions. Mr. Palowsky argued that there is evidence that Ms. ₆Campbell had access to the Cork file, that she previously mishandled court documents, and that the defendant judges have protected her. Regarding attorney’s fees, Mr. Palowsky...