O'Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc. v. White

384 So.3d 1194

55,520 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/10/24)

O’REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant

v.Terry WHITE d/b/a The Shop, Defendant-Appellee

Terry White d/b/a The Shop, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant-Appellee

No. 55,520-CA, No. 55,521-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment Rendered April 10, 2024

Appealed from the Eighth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Winn, Louisiana, Trial Court Nos. 46,483 and 46,644, Honorable Anastasia Stacy Wiley, Judge

NEWMAN, MATHIS, BRADY & SPEDALE, By: Richard L. Crawford, Baton Rouge, BLANCHARD, WALKER, O’QUIN & ROBERTS, APLC, By: Scott R. Wolf Counsel for Appellant

CORKERN, CREWS, GUILLET & JOHNSON, LLC, By: Lisa V. Johnson, Counsel for Appellee

Before PITMAN, COX, and HUNTER, JJ.

HUNTER, J.

₁Plaintiff, O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., appeals a trial court's ruling which vacated an October 2020 judgment which recognized and made executory a default judgment rendered in the State of Missouri, found the actions of O’Reilly violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, and awarded damages and attorney fees.

For the following reasons, we amend the trial court’s judgment to vacate the portions which ordered O’Reilly to move to vacate the Missouri default judgment and ordered Terry White’s counsel to report O’Reilly’s counsel to the Missouri State Bar Association. As amended, we affirm.

FACTS

Defendant, Terry White, owned a business known as Winn Performance in Winnfield, Louisiana. In 2016, White submitted a credit application to O’Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. ("O’Reilly"), and he maintained the credit account thereafter. White’s nephew, Samuel LaPrairie, worked at Winn Performance. In February 2019, White closed Winn Performance, and LaPrairie began operating a business known as The Shop at Winn Performance’s former location.

Kimberly White, the account manager at O’Reilly’s Winnfield store, believed there had been a change in the name of the business (from Winn Performance to The Shop); she also believed White was the owner of The Shop. In February 2019, Kimberly White completed the top portion of a credit application, and another O’Reilly employee took the application to The Shop. Someone at the shop completed the remaining portions of the credit application and signed Terry White’s name on the application. Subsequently, LaPrairie/The Shop began using the credit account to order ₂automotive parts and supplies for The Shop. Kimberly White testified LaPrairie made sporadic payments on the account, then stopped.

In October or November 2019, O’Reilly contacted White about payment on the account. White denied signing the February 2019 credit application and denied owing the debt. White informed the O’Reilly employee he did not own The Shop, and he did not open a credit account in the name of The Shop.

On May 19, 2020, O’Reilly filed a lawsuit against "Terry White d/b/a The Shop" in the State of Missouri to collect on the account. White was served with the petition in Winnfield, Louisiana and retained counsel. A series of emails were exchanged between counsel for White and counsel for O’Reilly, in which White’s counsel informed O’Reilly’s counsel the signature on the 2019 credit application was not White’s signature, White was not the owner of The Shop, and White had not made any purchases on behalf of The Shop. Counsel for O’Reilly asked White to provide an affidavit identifying the person who signed the credit application. White denied knowing who signed it, and O’Reilly continued the litigation and refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

O’Reilly obtained a default judgment in Missouri. Pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, on October 5, 2020, O’Reilly filed an ex parte petition to make the Missouri judgment executory in Louisiana. O’Reilly alleged White, d/b/a The Shop, owed the principal sum of $10,341.60, interest of $846.60 through the date of judgment, attorney fees of $3,443.75, interest on those amounts from date of judgment at the rate of 18% per annum, and court costs, process server fees and sheriff's fees through the date of judgment, together with all post-judgment court costs, process server fees and ₃sheriff's fees and all costs of the Louisiana proceedings.¹ On October 7, 2020, the trial court signed an order recognizing the Missouri judgment and making it executory in Louisiana.

Notice of the foreign judgment was issued to White, and on October 27, 2020, he filed an answer and opposition to the ex parte petition, a "motion to deny full faith and credit to Missouri judgment, request for stay, and incorporated memorandum in support."² White denied being indebted to O’Reilly and asserted the judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit in this state because (1) the Missouri court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and (2) the Missouri judgment was obtained through fraud and ill practices, in violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act ("LUTPA"). He alleged the Missouri judgment was rendered by virtue of a purported credit agreement between O’Reilly and a person named Terry White, who owned a company called "The Shop." White denied any connection to the State of Missouri, with the exception of passing through the state. White also denied entering into the alleged credit agreement, owning a company styled "The Shop," and doing business as "The Shop." White requested a stay of the prior order recognizing the Missouri judgment and making it executory in Louisiana. On October 28, 2020, the trial court ₄signed an ex parte order which set a hearing and stayed the enforcement and execution of the Missouri judgment.³

A hearing was held, and in O’Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc. v. White, 54,057 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/11/21), 326 So. 3d 354 ("O’Reilly I"), this Court described the proceedings as follows:

The court proceedings held on November 24, 2020, were conducted in a rather unusual manner. There was considerable dialogue between the trial judge and the attorneys, particularly O’Reilly’s counsel. The attorneys were not given an opportunity to present their arguments on the record in an orderly manner. Also, despite the court being informed by White’s counsel that White and a forensic handwriting expert (who allegedly would testify that the signature on the credit application at issue was not White’s) were present, no evidence was adduced. The trial court repeatedly expressed concern about whether the Louisiana defendant was the same person who signed the credit application. O’Reilly’s counsel told the trial court that White had been served with the Missouri judgment and did not challenge it in Missouri, letting "the judgment go by default." O’Reilly’s counsel suggested that the trial court could issue a stay under La. R.S. 13:4244 and permit White to go to Missouri to fight the judgment there. The trial court disagreed and, during an extensive and somewhat disjointed colloquy with O’Reilly’s counsel, questioned whether O’Reilly was certain that White was the person who actually incurred the debt. The trial court stated that it would not "make somebody that isn’t the guy who bought the stuff go to Missouri." and "I don’t care what the law says on this issue, I’m not gonna do it…. May be a higher court that says that I’m just to-tally wrong, but, (laughter from both counsels) uh, - - uh, I had the same thing happen, uh, to my parents years ago - -" O’Reilly’s counsel stated he was ready to proceed on whether the judgment should be enforced here. However, in light of the court’s indication that it was going to continue the stay, he stated he would get a new court date and tell his clients that they would have to bring someone down to testify. The trial judge, who was about to retire, stated that if O’Reilly determined that White was the correct person, O’Reilly could return to court and the new judge would lift the stay and hear the case.

***

₅326 So. 3d at 356-57. Without ruling on the merits, the trial court continued the stay of the enforcement/execution of the Missouri judgment and declined to order White to post security.

In O'Reilly I, O’Reilly argued the trial court erred in issuing a stay and in failing to require White to provide a security bond. This Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the matter "with instructions for the court to schedule a contradictory hearing to consider the arguments raised by White concerning whether Louisiana should afford full faith and credit to the Missouri judgment and, if appropriate, to give the parties an opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective positions." O’Reilly I, 326 So. 3d at 360.

A contradictory hearing was held on September 8, 2022. Following the hearing, the trial court vacated the "October 7, 2020, order recognizing and making the Missouri August 13, 2020, default judgment executory in Louisiana." The court found O’Reilly’s actions constituted a violation of LUTPA and awarded to White damages as follows: $30,000 for stress and mental anguish; $5,000 for the cost of airfare and travel;⁴ $3,250 for expert witness fees; $145 for deposition costs; $18,400 in attorney fees; and $1,400 for post-trial attorney fees.

The judgment further provided, in pertinent part:

***

IT IS ORDERED that O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. shall move to vacate the Missouri August 13, 2020, default judgment.

IT IS ORDERED that two certified copies of the Reasons for Judgment shall be sent to Terry White’s counsel for her *** to report to the Missouri Bar Association, Douglas Evans’ actions ₆in knowingly proceeding with a case in bad faith and presenting a false document to the court.

***

O’Reilly appeals.

DISCUSSION

O’Reilly contends the trial court erred in denying full faith and credit to the default judgment issued by the Missouri court. O’Reilly argues the Missouri judgment is entitled to full faith and credit, and evidence of intrinsic fraud, presented by White, was insufficient to overcome the presumption that the ...