Williams v. Haley

302 So.3d 13

Cindy WILLIAMS

v.Norman S. HALEY

Cindy H. Williams

v.Norman S. Haley

NO. 2019-CA-0116

NO. 2019-CA-0479

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

JUNE 3, 2020

Leslie A. Bonin, LESLIE A. BONIN, LLC, 700 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130-3702, Cindy H. Williams, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 111 Veterans Blvd., Suite 804, Metairie, LA 70005, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Theon Agnes Wilson, LAW OFFICESOF THEON A. WILSON, 1100 Poydras St., Suite 2900, New Orleans, LA 70163-2900, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

(Court composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Dale N. Atkins )

Edwin A. Lombard, Judge

This consolidated appeal stems from an August 8, 2018 incident involving attorneys Norman S. Haley and Cindy Williams, who represents the wife of Mr. Haley in a divorce proceeding. Both parties seek review of two October 31, 2018 district court judgments rendered in Civil District Court Case No. 2018-07976: a judgment dismissing the original petition for temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction ("Original Petition") of Ms. Williams, and a separate judgment awarding Mr. Haley attorney's fees as a result of Ms. Williams’ filing of the Original Petition.

Moreover, Mr. Haley appeals the district court's March 12, 2019 judgment—rendered in Civil District Court Case No. 2018-08728— granting a permanent injunction in favor of Ms. Williams. He additionally filed a motion to dismiss, and/or alternatively motion to strike the appeal of Ms. Williams.

Pursuant to our review of the law, record and applicable facts, we affirm the October 31, 2018 judgments, and dismiss in part as moot Ms. Williams’ appeal of the dismissal of her Original Petition. We further amend the March 12, 2019 judgment and affirm as amended. Lastly, we deny Mr. Haley's motion.

Facts and Procedural History

On August 8, 2018, the parties were present in the district court for a hearing in Mr. Haley's divorce proceeding. Ms. Williams alleges that while she and Mr. Haley were in the hallway of the court on that date, he made eye contact with her prior to pushing her into a wall with his upper body.

Following the alleged incident, Ms. Williams visited the Louisiana Supreme Court's webpage for the Louisiana Protective Order Registry and obtained a petition for temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, also known as a LPOR Form O, the Original Petition, which she subsequently completed and filed on August 10, 2018.

In the Original Petition, Ms. Williams alleged that while the parties were present in the district court for a hearing in the divorce proceeding, Mr. Haley shoved her against a wall in a hallway, allegedly battering her. She further pleaded that "[b]ecause of the immediate and present danger of abuse, stalking or sexual assault" she was requesting "an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order be issued without prior notice."

The district court, specifically the duty judge, granted the temporary restraining order on the same date the Original Petition was filed, and signed a "Louisiana Abuse Prevention Order," which is essentially a fill-in form, and set an expiration date of August 30, 2018.¹ The district court assigned the case to the Domestic Relations section of the district court because the Original Petition was filed on a LPOR form. The Louisiana Uniform Abuse Prevention Order was registered with the Louisiana Supreme Court's Protective Order Registry and Mr. Haley remained on the registry for approximately 3 weeks until the order expired.

In response to the issuance of the Louisiana Uniform Abuse Prevention order, Mr. Haley filed several exceptions and motions in response to the petition. Specifically, he filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction; an exception of prematurity; exception of no right of action; motion to dissolve temporary restraining order; a motion for sanctions and a request for damages, attorney's fees and court costs. Mr. Haley contested the assignment of the case to the Domestic Relations section because the parties: were never married; are not current or former intimate cohabitants; are not current or former dating partners; and, are unrelated. Thus, he maintained Ms. Williams improperly sought relief through a LPOR form, and was successful in obtaining relief through a process to which she was unentitled.

At the conclusion of an August 30, 2018 hearing, the district court determined Ms. Williams used an incorrect form.² Consequently, the Court dismissed her Original Petition without prejudice and awarded Mr. Haley "all attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of the wrongfully-obtained TRO."

The following day, Ms. Williams filed a petition for permanent injunction ("Second Petition") against Mr. Haley, which was allotted to Division "G" of Judge Giarrusso, in Civil District Court Case No. 2018-08728. Mr. Haley objected to the Second Petition.

Meanwhile, in the Original Petition proceedings, Ms. Williams filed a motion to traverse attorney's fees, which was set for a contradictory hearing in October 2018. At the October hearing, Mr. Haley testified that all of the legal work in the billing records was conducted in defense against the temporary restraining order. He identified checks he wrote as payment of the attorney's fees, which totaled $15,550. Moreover, he introduced billing records at the hearing with an affidavit, showing payments to his attorney of $19,510.50.

On October 31, 2018, the district court issued two judgments: 1) a judgment, documenting the district court's August 30, 2018 ruling; dismissing Ms. Williams’ Original Petition; denying Mr. Haley's exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motion for sanctions; and dismissing as moot his remaining exceptions; and 2) a judgment awarding Mr. Haley $8,290 in attorney's fees. Ms. Williams filed a supervisory writ application, seeking review of both the August and October 2018 rulings, which this Court denied. Williams v. Haley , 18-C-0968 (La. App. 4th Cir. 01/07/19). Additionally, both parties timely filed the instant appeal of these judgments.

Thereafter, in the Second Petition pending before Judge Giarrusso, a two-day trial was scheduled. During the trial, which ended in January 2019, both parties testified as well as their respective accident reconstruction specialists. Additionally, courthouse surveillance video was introduced into evidence. The district court granted the permanent injunction against Mr. Haley on March 12, 2019. The judgment ordered Mr. Haley as well as "his agents or assigns from harassing, threatening, coming into any physical contact" with Ms. Williams and from communicating with her "in any manner." Mr. Haley timely filed the instant appeal of the March 2019 judgment.

We begin our review of the assignments of error of both parties by first addressing the judgments of October 31, 2018, followed by the March 12, 2019 judgment. Lastly, we shall discuss the motion to dismiss and/or alternatively motion to strike of Mr. Haley.

October 31st Judgments: Dismissal of the Original Petition and the Award of Attorney's Fees

Ms. Williams avers that district court erroneously dismissed her Original Petition and awarded Mr. Haley attorney's fees in its respective October 31, 2018 judgments. Mr. Haley also appeals the judgment awarding attorney's fees, asserting the award is inadequate. We disagree, finding a review of the dismissal of the Original Petition to be moot and the judgment on attorney's fees was properly rendered.

Dismissal of the Original Petition

Ms. Williams asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing her original petition on the basis that it was filed on an incorrect form. As stated in the procedural history above, Ms. Williams filed her Second Petition and ultimately received the relief she sought. Recognizing that this Court cannot afford Ms. Williams any relief pertaining to this issue and appellate courts are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions, we find this assignment of error is moot because a judgment from this Court would serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or effect. Edward v. Badie , 19-0332, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/28/19), 282 So.3d 269, 270 (quoting Cat's Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Dep't of Fin ., 98-0601, p. 8 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186, 1193 ).

Attorney's Fees Award

Regarding the district court's award of $8,290 in attorney's fees, Ms. Williams maintains that the ruling should be reversed because the district court abused its discretion and committed reversible error in ordering her to pay Mr. Haley's attorney's fees. Conversely, Mr. Haley asserts that the district court erred in awarding less than the amount set forth in his billing records and affidavit. We find the parties’ arguments are without merit, respectively. However, first we must address an argument raised by Mr. Haley: this Court's prior denial the writ application of Ms. Williams, Williams v. Haley , 18-C-0968 (La. App. 4th Cir. 01/07/19), is law of the case.

Pursuant to the law of the case doctrine, "an appellate court will not reconsider its rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case." Glover v. Shiflett Transp. Servs., Inc ., 97-2787 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/6/98), 718 So.2d 436, 439 (quoting In re M.W ., 93-1809 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/30/94), 641 So.2d 582, 584 ). "The doctrine applies to all decisions of an appellate court, not just those arising from appeals. Nonetheless, the doctrine is discretionary and not applicable in cases of palpable former error or where application would cause manifest injustice." Id .

In addition to the application of the doctrine being discretionary, this Court has held that prior determinations in a request for supervisory writ applications is "not necessarily binding on a subsequent appeal." 1205 St. Charles Condo. Assoc. Inc. v. Abel, 18-0566, p. 13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/19/18), 262 So.3d 919, 927 (quoting Armstrong Airport Concessions v. K-Squared Rest., LLC ,...