text:
    In re Daniel R. DEL PRIORE.
    No. 2004-OB-2213.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 6, 2004.
   ORDER

Considering the request of respondent to resign from the Louisiana Bar, and the response thereto filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s request for resignation be and hereby is denied. Respondent may file a petition for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline in accordance with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.1.

/s/ Bernette J. Johnson Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Daniel R. DEL PRIORE.
    No. 2004-B-2305.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 6, 2004.
   ORDER

Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that Daniel R. Del Priore, Louisiana Bar Roll number 14845, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that necessary disciplinary proceedings be instituted in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, §§ 11 and 19.

/s/ Bernette J. Johnson Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re Brett S. LALA.
    No. 2004-OB-1769.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 7, 2004.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Brett S. Lala, is eligible to be admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana.

ADMISSION GRANTED.


text:
    In re Donald A. WEATHERSBY, II.
    No. 2004-OB-1811.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 7, 2004.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Donald A. Weathersby, II, is eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a probationary period of two years. During this period, petitioner shall provide evidence to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, on at least a quarterly basis, demonstrating that he has made a good faith effort to satisfy his financial obligations. Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy his financial obligations, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.


text:
    In re CONFIDENTIAL PARTY.
    No. 2004-B-1739.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 7, 2004.
   ORDER

Considering the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline filed by respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Petition for Consent Discipline be and hereby is rejected pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be remanded for the institution of formal charges.

/s/ Jeanette Theriot Knoll Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


author: hPER CURIAM.

text:
    In re Edward B. DOMM, IV.
    No. 2004-B-1194.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

hPER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Edward B. Domm, IV, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, but currently ineligible to practice.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY AND INELIGIBILITY HISTORY

Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1993. In 1997, he was admonished by the disciplinary board for neglecting a legal matter, failing to account for an advance deposit for fees and costs, practicing law while ineligible, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In 1998, respondent was admonished for revealing to a third party confidential information about a Ghent’s representation without the client’s consent.

Furthermore, since respondent was admitted, he has frequently been ineligible to practice law for failing to comply with his professional obligations, as follows:

10/1/96 to 3/11/97 — failure to pay bar dues
1/1/97 to 3/11/97 — failure to pay the disciplinary assessment
9/2/97 to 9/10/97-failure to pay bar dues
| ¡>,8/1/99 to 9/15/99 — failure to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education (“MCLE”) requirements
9/3/99 to 9/15/99 — failure to pay bar dues and the disciplinary assessment
8/14/00 to 10/5/00 — failure to comply with the MCLE requirements
9/1/00 to 9/28/00 — failure to pay bar dues and the disciplinary assessment
7/26/01 to 11/13/01 — failure to comply with the MCLE requirements
9/4/01 to 11/13/01 — failure to pay bar dues and the disciplinary assessment
8/3/02 to present — failure to comply with the MCLE requirements
9/4/02 to present — failure to pay bar dues and the disciplinary assessment

FORMAL CHARGES

The ODC filed two sets of formal charges against respondent. The first set of formal charges, consisting of six counts and bearing the disciplinary board’s docket number 02-DB-025, was filed on March 5, 2002. The second set of formal charges, consisting of one count and bearing the disciplinary board’s docket number 02-DB-085, was filed on August 16, 2002. The two sets of formal charges were consolidated by an order of the hearing committee chair dated November 5, 2002.

U02-DB-025

Count I

Respondent was ineligible to practice law from October 1, 1996 to March 11, 1997 for failing to pay his bar dues, and from January 1,1997 to March 11,1997 for failing to pay the disciplinary assessment. Nevertheless, on October 10, 1996, respondent filed a letter on his client’s behalf requesting service in the matter of Jeffrey D. Howerton v. Karen Hunter, No. 73,843 on the docket of the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(b) (failure to comply with the mandatory continuing legal education requirements), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), and 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct).

Count II

In July 1998, while respondent was a partner in the law firm of Curet, Barron & Domm, Terry Gregory hired him to handle a child support and visitation matter. Mr. Gregory paid $2,000 of an agreed-upon $3,000 fee and provided respondent all the documents he requested. Despite repeated phone calls to respondent, Mr. Gregory was never able to speak with him again. Two days before his October 1, 1998 court date, Mr. Gregory called the law firm and was given respondent’s home telephone phone number and pager number. However, respondent still did not return Mr. Gregory’s phone calls, and Mr. Gregory had to ask another attorney at the law firm to handle the matter at the court hearing. In March 1999, Mr. Gregory filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC.

|4The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), and 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation).

Count III

Respondent was ineligible to practice law from August 1, 1999 to September 15, 1999 for failing to complete his MCLE requirements. Nevertheless, during this time period, he represented three clients in criminal matters in the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston. On August 9, 1999, respondent represented the defendant in State of Louisiana v. Heather Higginbotham, Nos. 13782 and 13929, wherein the defendant pled guilty and was sentenced. On August 10, 1999, he represented the defendant in State of Louisiana v. Paul Schulte, Nos. 13628, 13866, and 074627, wherein the defendant pled guilty and was sentenced. Finally, on August 18, 1999, respondent represented the defendant in State of Louisiana v. Renee Ritchie, Nos. 11698 and 11752, wherein the defendant’s probation was revoked.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(b), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Count IV

Lawrence Watson retained respondent to defend him in a civil suit. Thereafter, Mr. Watson tried for approximately one year to contact respondent, with no success. Although the trial of the matter was set for January 6, 1999, respondent never |Binformed Mr. Watson of the trial date. Because Mr. Watson did not appear at trial to testify on his own behalf and offer a defense, the trial judge found that the plaintiff had met his burden of proof and rendered judgment against Mr. Watson in the amount of $3,855.35.

In March 2000, Mr. Watson filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to reply to Mr. Watson’s complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena compelling him to appear and answer the complaint under oath.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation).

Count V

Respondent was ineligible to practice law from August 14, 2000 to October 5, 2000 .for failing to complete his MCLE requirements. Nevertheless, on August 16, 2000, respondent represented the defendant- in State of Louisiana v. Phillip Lentz, Jr., No. 14779 on the docket of the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston, wherein a jury trial was conducted and the defendant was found guilty.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.1(b), 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).

Count VI

| Jn April 1997, respondent received personal injury settlements for his clients, Crystal Sticker and Timothy McCullen. Respondent had previously received written notice of a statutory lien for medical services provided to his clients by Dr. George Anthon, Jr., but he failed to pay the sums owed to Dr. Anthon, totaling $1,820. When Dr. Anthon learned of the settlements, he sent respondent several letters demanding payment. Despite promising to resolve the matter, respondent failed to do so. In February 2001, Dr. Anthon filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.15 (safekeeping property of clients or third parties) and 8.4(a).

02-DB-085

In 2000, Ivory Williams paid respondent $500 to handle a criminal matter. Specifically, respondent was to seek a modification or amendment of Mr. Williams’ sentence and have Mr. Williams’ Department of Corrections records corrected so that Mr. Williams’ parole eligibility date could be adjusted. Respondent neglected the matter and failed to communicate with Mr. Williams. Respondent also failed to account for any earned portion and to refund the unearned portion of the legal fee Mr. Williams paid. Finally, respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint filed by Mr. Williams.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f) (failure to refund an unearned fee), 1.16(d), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), and 8.4(g).

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

17Both sets of formal charges were served upon respondent personally. Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply to the formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were, deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). No formal hearing was held, but the parties were given an opportunity to file with the hearing committee written arguments and documentary evidence on the issue of sanctions. Respondent filed nothing for the hearing committee’s consideration.

Hearing Committee Recommendation

After consideration of the ODC’s submission in response to the deemed admitted order, the hearing committee found that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges. Respondent failed to keep his clients informed of the status of their cases, appeared in court while ineligible to practice law, failed to appear for a scheduled court date, abandoned clients, and did not protect his clients’ interests upon termination of his representation. Respondent also failed to refund unearned fees and failed to pay medical bills out of settlement proceeds. Furthermore, respondent did not complete his MCLE requirements and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation.

The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the profession. He acted knowingly and intentionally, causing harm to his clients, a third-party medical provider, the legal system, and the profession.

Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct to be a period of suspension. The committee found no mitigating factors. However, as ^aggravating factors, the committee recognized respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and indifference to making restitution.

Under these circumstances, and relying on the prior jurisprudence considering conduct similar to respondent’s, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years and be required to attend the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School.

Neither respondent nor the ODC objected to the hearing committee’s recommendation.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After reviewing this matter, the disciplinary board found that the deemed admitted facts support the conclusion that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in both sets of formal charges. Respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and as a professional. His misconduct was partly knowing and partly intentional. He failed to return an unearned fee to Mr. Williams and failed to pay Dr. Anthon out of settlement proceeds. Respondent harmed Mr. Gregory by not preparing for or appearing at the child support hearing. He harmed Mr. Watson by failing to notify him of a trial date, which resulted in an adverse judgment against Mr. Watson. Respondent failed to work on Mr. Williams’ sentence modification or correct the records maintained by the Department of Corrections. Furthermore, respondent harmed the legal system by filing pleadings 19and appearing in court while ineligible to practice law. The baseline sanction for such conduct is a suspension from the practice of law.

The board found the following aggravating factors are present in this case: prior disciplinary offenses, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary system by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency. No mitigating factors were found.

Under these circumstances, and relying on the prior jurisprudence considering conduct similar to respondent’s, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years. The board also recommended that respondent be required to attend Ethics School and that he be ordered to provide account-ings and make restitution to his clients and Dr. Anthon. Finally, the board recommended that respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Two board members dissented and would recommend the imposition of disbarment to “better protect the unsuspecting public.”

The ODC filed an objection in this court to the disciplinary board’s recommendation, seeking the imposition of disbarment. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1)(b), a timely filed objection to the board’s findings and recommendations ordinarily results in the assignment of the matter for oral argument. However, prior to the docketing of the case for oral argument, the ODC moved to waive oral argument. Respondent was invited to respond to the motion, but failed to lindo so. On September 1, 2004, this court granted the ODC’s motion to waive oral argument and consented to consider the matter on the record presented.

JyDISCUSSION

The deemed admitted facts in this case establish that respondent has violated Rules 1.1(b), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(f), 1.15, 1.16(d), 5.5(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, the sole issue presented for our consideration is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct.

In determining a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La.1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses involved, considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La.1984).

Respondent repeatedly violated duties owed to his clients, the legal system, and the profession. His conduct was at least knowing, if not intentional, and he caused actual harm to his clients, a third-party medical provider, the legal system, and the profession. This court has imposed disbarment for similar misconduct coupled with numerous aggravating factors in the cases of In re: Gibson, 00-2658 (La.11/27/00), 773 So.2d 691, and In re: Richard, 00-1418 (La.8/31/00), 767 So.2d 36, and we find the sanction of disbarment is likewise appropriate here. Respondent’s long history of failing to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment, and of failing to complete his MCLE requirements, demonstrate that he has no respect for his obligations as a professional. This fact, coupled with respondent’s apparent lack of concern for the welfare of his clients, third persons, and the administration of justice, | ^suggest to us that he is not fit to practice law in Louisiana. Respondent must be disbarred.

Accordingly, we will reject the disciplinary board’s recommendation of a three-year suspension and impose disbarment.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Edward B. Domm, IV, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22039, be and he hereby is disbarred. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. Respondent is ordered to make restitution of all monies owed to clients and third parties and to attend the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

      . Respondent was expelled from the law firm of Curet, Barron & Domm on September 17, 1998 after approximately three weeks of having no contact with the firm.

      . Respondent appeared at trial and represented to the judge that he had tried to contact Mr. Watson but had not heard from him.

      . The board particularly noted In re: Maxwell, 00-3527 (La.3/30/01), 783 So.2d 1244, and In re: Wyche, 00-0029 (La.3/31/00), 756 So.2d 311, both of which resulted in a three-year suspension for neglect of legal matters, failure to communicate with clients, failure to account for and return unearned fees, and practicing law while ineligible to do so.

      . Though the question is largely academic in light of respondent's numerous other violations, we find that he did not violate Rule 1.1(b) in Count I of 02-DB-025. Respondent was not MCLE-ineligible in 1996 or 1997, the time period covered by that particular count of the formal charges. The court's records indicate that respondent did not become ineligible for failing to complete his MCLE requirements until August 1, 1999.


text:
    In re Brenda W. WALTZER.
    No. 2004-B-1032.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

hPER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Brenda W. Waltzer, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

The ODC filed three sets of formal charges against respondent. The first set of formal charges, consisting of a single count and bearing the disciplinary board’s docket number 02-DB-045, was filed on May 13, 2002. On June 17, 2002, the ODC filed the second set of formal charges, 02-DB-062, which also consisted of one count of misconduct. The first and second sets of formal charges were consolidated by order of the hearing committee chair dated August 6, 2002. On August 7, 2002, the ODC filed the third set of formal charges, consisting of two counts and bearing the disciplinary board’s docket number 02-DB-077. For some reason that is not explained in the record before us, the third set of formal charges was not consolidated with the other pending matters, and was considered by a separate hearing committee. On April 28, 2004, the disciplinary board filed in this court a single recommendation of discipline encompassing all matters involving respondent.

19The Joubert Matter (02-DB-045)

In 1990, Edith Joubert retained respondent to represent her in an employment discrimination claim against her former employer, Dixie Mill Supply Company, Inc. (“Dixie Mill”). In December 1990, respondent filed suit against Dixie Mill on behalf of Ms. Joubert. Edith Harvey Joubert v. Dixie Mill Supply Co., Inc., No. 90-24156 on the docket of the Orleans Parish Civil District Court. After the parties conducted discovery, including a deposition of Ms. Joubert in October 1996, the case was set for trial on February 24, 1997.

In late January 1997, Dixie Mill filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion on February 7, 1997. The proceedings were then stayed to allow Dixie Mill to seek review of the trial court’s judgment in the court of appeal. On February 26, 1997, respondent wrote a letter to Dixie Mill’s attorney, H. Mark Adams, in which she offered to settle Ms. Joubert’s case for $8,000. After the court of appeal denied Dixie Mill’s application for supervisory writs on April 21, 1997, Dixie Mill authorized Mr. Adams to counter respondent’s proposal with a settlement offer of $5,000. Mr. Adams extended the offer to respondent in a telephone conversation on May 1, 1997, but thereafter he did not speak to her again until June 26, 1998, when respondent called to inquire about setting the case for trial. There has been no further activity of record in Ms. Joubert’s case, and the suit now appears abandoned.

In May 2001, Ms. Joubert filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC, alleging that she had been unable to contact respondent since her deposition. According to Ms. Joubert, both she and her daughter, Kathy Rushing, left numerous messages for respondent, but their calls were not returned. Respondent’s telephone number was eventually disconnected and her law office was closed. In 2000, Ms. Rushing was finally successful in reaching respondent, who indicated that Dixie Mill 1 shad offered to settle the Jou-bert case for $5,000. Ms. Rushing authorized respondent to accept the settlement offer on behalf of her mother; however, by that time, Dixie Mill’s offer was no longer available. Respondent has had no further communication with Ms. Joubert or Ms. Rushing.

Respondent failed to reply to Ms. Jou-bert’s complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena compelling her to appear and answer the complaint under oath. In her sworn statement, respondent acknowledged receiving telephone calls from both Ms. Joubert and Ms. Rushing, and that she had been delinquent in returning the calls. Respondent also indicated that she would send Ms. Joubert a certified letter requesting further instructions concerning the continuation of the representation. Ms. Joubert denied ever receiving such a letter from respondent.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct in the Joubert matter violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.16(d) (obligations upon termination of the representation), 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(g) (failure to cooperate with, the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Respondent answered the formal charges and denied any misconduct. In particular, respondent asserted that Ms. Joubert’s case was not abandoned because on RMarch 2, 2000, she sent a discovery request to the defendant seeking copies of all documentary evidence that the defendant planned to use at trial.

The Krilov Matter (02-DB-062)

In 1997, Alan Marc Krilov retained respondent to represent him in a personal injury matter. Respondent filed a petition for damages on behalf of Mr. Krilov on October 17, 1997. Alan M. Krilov v. Keith Davis, No. 97-57541 on the docket of the First City Court for the City of New Orleans. The petition specified that service of citation be withheld. On July 17, 1998, respondent requested that service of citation be effected. Defendant’s answer of September 17, 1998 was the last activity of record in the case, and the suit now appears abandoned.

During the representation Mr. Krilov left numerous messages for respondent seeking information on the status of the case. Respondent failed to return the calls and also failed to reply to a certified letter from Mr. Krilov that she received on September 12, 2001.

In October 2001, Mr. Krilov filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to reply to the complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena compelling her to appear on March 6, 2002 and answer the complaint under oath. Respondent failed to appear on that date.

In March 2002, the ODC received correspondence from respondent dated January 22, 2002 in which she suggested that she had previously answered Mr. Krilov’s complaint by letter to the ODC dated November 20, 2001. Respondent also supplied the ODC with a copy of a letter she purportedly sent to Mr. Krilov in which she advised him that she had undertaken discovery in his case and that the defendant | Bhad offered a settlement. Mr. Krilov denied ever receiving such a letter from respondent.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct in the Krilov matter violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(a) (failure to withdraw from the representation of a client upon being discharged), 1.16(d), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), 3.3(a) (knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal), 3.4(c), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Respondent answered the formal charges and denied any misconduct. Respondent asserted that she made numerous attempts to contact Mr. Krilov during the representation and that she forwarded Mr. Krilov a settlement offer made by the defendant.

The Thomas Matter (02-DB-077)

In 1994, Gregory Thomas, Sr. retained respondent to represent him in an employment discrimination claim against his former employer. In December 1994, respondent filed suit on behalf of Mr. Thomas. Gregory Thomas v. Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc., et al., No. 94-19240 on the docket of the Orleans Parish Civil District Court. In December 1995, respondent filed an amended petition. In July 2001, after numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent by phone and by leaving notes on the door of her law office, Mr. Thomas mailed a certified letter to respondent requesting his file so that he could seek new counsel. Respondent did not reply to Mr. Thomas’ request.

In August 2001, Mr. Thomas filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to reply to Mr. Thomas’ complaint, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena compelling her to appear and answer the complaint under oath. In her sworn statement, respondent testified that she had returned Mr. Thomas’ |fifile to him by certified mail. When the ODC received correspondence from Mr. Thomas disputing this assertion, respondent was asked to supply the ODC with documentation evidencing her return of the file. Respondent failed to do so. On March 28, 2002, respondent was personally served with a subpoena compelling her to appear before the ODC on April 10, 2002 and give a supplemental response to Mr. Thomas’ continuing complaint. Respondent failed to appear on that date. As of the filing of the formal charges, respondent has not surrendered Mr. Thomas’ file either to her client or to his new attorney, Jerald Album.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct in the Thomas matter violated Rules 1.3, 1.4,1.7(b) (a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests), 1.16(a), 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1(a) (knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent answered the formal charges and denied any misconduct.

Recommendations of the Hearing Committees

The Joubert and Krilov Matters

As previously noted, the Joubert and Krilov matters were consolidated for purposes of a hearing on the merits, which was conducted by the hearing committee on September 4, 2002.

Respondent appeared at the hearing and testified in connection with the Joubert matter, as did Ms. Joubert, her daughter, Kathy Rushing, and attorney Mark Adams, who represented the defendant in Ms. Joubert’s case.

After considering the evidence and testimony presented, the committee made the following findings of fact in the Joubert matter:

|71. In 1990, Edith Harvey Joubert hired Respondent in an employment-related claim against Dixie Mill Supply Company, Inc.
2. In December 1990, Respondent filed suit on Ms. Joubert’s behalf, but withheld service on the defendant until July 1991. Thereafter the matter was set for trial on February 24,1997.
3. On October 11, 1996, counsel for Dixie Mill took Ms. Joubert’s deposition.
4. Dixie Mill’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied on February 6, 1997, and the proceedings were stayed pending decision on the defendant’s application for supervisory writs. The writ application was denied on April 21,1997.
5. There has been no further activity of record in the proceeding, and the suit is now considered abandoned for failure to prosecute.
6. During the period of the representation, Respondent became inaccessible to Ms. Joubert, and failed to return numerous telephone calls from Ms. Joubert and her daughter Kathy Rushing.
7. Respondent also failed to return telephone calls from Ms. Rushing’s employer, Henry Leon Sarpy, who also attempted to make inquiries on behalf of Ms. Joubert.
8. At some point in the year 2000, Respondent advised Kathy Rushing that the defendant had offered $5,000 to settle the matter. Ms. Rushing instructed Respondent to accept the offer, as Ms. Joubert needed the money for medical expenses. Respondent had no further contact with Ms. Joubert or Ms. Rushing.
9. H. Mark Adams, counsel for Dixie Mill, received no response from Respondent to his client’s offer to settle the case for $5,000. The settlement offer is no longer available to Ms. Joubert.
|s10. Respondent’s telephone number was disconnected and her office was closed without notice to Ms. Joubert or Ms. Rushing.
11. On October 25, 2001, in a sworn statement before Disciplinary Counsel Respondent made false statements and misrepresentations as to her efforts on behalf of Ms. Joubert and the status of her case.
12. On June 5, 2001, Respondent was served with a copy of Ms. Joubert’s complaint by certified mail. She failed to submit the requested response, and was thereafter personally served with an investigatory subpoena by which she was compelled to appear before Disciplinary Counsel and answer the complaint.

Based on these factual findings, the committee determined that the formal charges in the Joubert matter were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Turning to the Krilov matter, the ODC called Mr. Krilov and respondent as witnesses. Respondent also testified on her own behalf. After considering the evidence and testimony presented, the committee made the following findings of fact:

1. On October 15,1997, Alan Marc Kri-lov hired Respondent in a personal injury case.
2. On October 17, 1997, Respondent filed suit, but requested that service be held.
3. On July 17, 1998, Respondent released service on defendant, and an answer was filed September 17, 1998.
4. There is no further activity of record in the matter.
5. Respondent failed to return numerous telephone calls from Mr. Krilov, and refused to respond to certified mail from him.
|96. Respondent failed to withdraw from the representation after Mr. Krilov demanded his file back.
7.On November 29, 2001, Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint filed by Mr. Krilov. She failed to submit the requested response to the complaint.
8. On February 23, 2002, Respondent was personally served with an investigatory subpoena by which she was compelled to appear before Disciplinary Counsel to answer the complaint. Respondent failed to appear.
9. Thereafter, Respondent submitted correspondence to Disciplinary Counsel that falsely indicated that she had previously responded to the complaint and previously provided a status report to Mr. Krilov.

Based on these factual findings, the committee determined that the formal charges in the Krilov matter were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that respondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(a), 1.16(d), 3.2, 3.3(a), 3.4(c), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The committee found respondent violated duties owed to her clients, the legal system, and the profession. Respondent’s actions were negligent in part and intentional in part. Two clients were actually harmed by the abandonment of their cases. Additionally, Ms. Joubert lost a $5,000 settlement offer. Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and relevant case law, the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law.

The committee recognized the aggravating factors of prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply |inwith the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, submission of false evidence, false statements, and other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process, substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1989), and indifference to rectifying the consequences of the misconduct. The committee recognized no mitigating factors.

Under these circumstances, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with all but six months deferred. The committee further recommended that respondent be placed on supervised probation for a period of two years.

The ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s recommendation, asserting that a substantial period of deferment is unduly lenient under the facts and circumstances of this case.

The Thomas Matter

The hearing in the Thomas matter was originally set for December 3, 2002. The day before the hearing, respondent filed a motion seeking a continuance, citing an unspecified “medical condition” that she alleged prevented her from attending the hearing. The hearing committee chair denied the continuance absent any supporting evidence. Nevertheless, the hearing was in fact continued to January 21, 2003 due to the illness of the public member of the hearing committee. When the hearing was held on that date, the ODC called Mr. Gregory Thomas, Sr. and attorney Jerald Album to testify in person before the committee. Respondent did not attend the hearing.

After considering the evidence and testimony presented, the committee made a finding of fact that respondent neglected the legal matter entrusted to her by Mr. Thomas, refused or failed to release his file, and refused to cooperate in the disciplinary process. Based on these findings, the committee determined that Inrespondent violated Rules 1.3, 1.4 and 1.16(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee did not address the violations of Rules 1.7(b), 1.16(a), 3.4(c), 8.1(a), 8.1(c), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(g) alleged in the formal charges.

Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined that the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a suspension from the practice of law. The committee recognized the aggravating factors of prior disciplinary offenses and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency. The committee made no finding concerning mitigating circumstances.

Under these circumstances, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years.

Respondent filed an objection to the hearing committee’s recommendation, asserting that her motion for a continuance had been “arbitrarily denied,” and that after the hearing was continued for other reasons, she did not receive notice of the new hearing date.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

Following its consideration of all three sets of formal charges, the disciplinary board adopted the factual findings of the hearing committee in the Joubert and Kri-lov matters, as well as its application of the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the | aboard noted that additional findings of fact are necessary in the Thomas matter to address all of the alleged rule violations. Accordingly, the board made the following supplemental findings of fact:

1. Mr. Thomas hired Respondent in February 1994 to represent him in a suit for wrongful termination by his former employer on December 12,1993.
2. Respondent filed a petition for damages in 1994 and an amended petition in 1996 on Mr. Thomas’ behalf.
3. Mr. Thomas delivered original documents to Respondent including maintenance manuals, certificates of specialization, medical records, receipts, and income tax information for 2000.
4. Mr. Thomas spoke with Respondent by telephone approximately fifteen times from 1994 to 2000.
5. In 2000, Respondent told Mr. Thomas that she was in negotiations with the defendant to settle his case.
6. After Respondent told Mr. Thomas that settlement negotiations were pending, Mr. Thomas was no longer able to reach Respondent by telephone. Mr. Thomas went to Respondent’s office between fifteen and twenty times only to find the lights on but no one inside the office.
7. In early 2001, Mr. Thomas learned that Respondent’s telephone had been disconnected.
8. In 2001, Mr. Thomas, through his wife, attempted to engage another attorney, Jerald Album, to pursue his case.
9.Mr. Thomas sent a letter to Respondent, via certified mail, on August 3, 2001, requesting his file so that he may engage other counsel.
|1310. Respondent testified in her sworn statement to ODC that she sent Mr. Thomas’ original documents back to him by certified mail and that she did not receive the green certified mail return card back.
11. During Respondent’s November 13, 2001 sworn statement, she produced two letters dated “October 26, 2001” indicating to ODC that she had returned Mr. Thomas’ file to him.
12. During Respondent’s November 13, 2001 sworn statement, she produced a letter dated “July 30, 1998” which purports to be her transmittal letter of discovery requests and an offer to settle addressed to Bridge Terminal Transport, an alleged defendant in Mr. Thomas’ case.
13. Since 2000, Mr. Thomas has not heard from Respondent about his case nor has he received his file or personal property.
14. Mr. Album tried to contact Respondent by telephone and by mail to obtain Mr. Thomas’ file but he never received a response from Respondent.
15. On March 28, 2002, ODC personally served Respondent with a subpoena requiring her to appear before ODC with Mr. Thomas’ file.
16. On April 10, 2002, Respondent failed to appear before ODC pursuant to a subpoena to answer questions about Mr. Thomas’ file.

Based on these factual findings, the board determined that respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged in the third set of formal charges, with the exception of the alleged violation of Rule 1.7(b). The board concluded that the ODC did not establish respondent had a conflict of interest with Mr. Thomas, either directly or due to her representation of another client.

The board found respondent knowingly violated duties owed to her clients, the legal system, and as a professional. Respondent’s conduct caused years of delay in the cases she handled and harmed all three complainants. In Ms. Joubert’s case, | ^respondent’s misconduct caused the client to lose not only her day in court but also a $5,000 settlement. Respondent’s failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation and her submission of misleading responses to the ODC caused unnecessary depletion of the agency’s resources. The baseline sanction for such conduct is a suspension from the practice of law.

The board found the aggravating factors of prior disciplinary offenses, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process, and substantial experience in the practice of law. The board found no mitigating factors are present.

Under these circumstances, and relying on the prior jurisprudence considering conduct similar to respondent’s, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years. The board also recommended that respondent be assessed with all costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s recommendation.

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters come within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const, art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Quaid, 94-1316 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 343, 348; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Boutall, 597 So.2d 444, 445 (La.1992). While we are not bound in any way by the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the manifest error | ^standard is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re: Caulfield, 96-1401 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 714; In re: Pardue, 93-2865 (La.3/11/94), 633 So.2d 150.

In the instant case, the factual findings of the hearing committees, as supplemented by the disciplinary board, are supported by the record and clearly demonstrate that respondent violated numerous provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Among other misconduct, respondent neglected the legal matters of three clients, failed to communicate with her clients, and failed to properly terminate the representation of her clients. Respondent also failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation, failed to appear in response to subpoenas personally served on her, and gave false and misleading information to the ODC.

Having found evidence of professional misconduct, the sole issue presented for our consideration is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s actions. In determining a sanction, we are mindful that disciplinary proceedings are designed to maintain high standards of conduct, protect the public, preserve the integrity of the profession, and deter future misconduct. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Reis, 513 So.2d 1173 (La.1987). The discipline to be imposed depends upon the facts of each case and the seriousness of the offenses involved, considered in light of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Whittington, 459 So.2d 520 (La.1984).

A review of the record indicates that respondent’s misconduct was both knowing and intentional with regard to her failure to take any action in her clients’ cases, failure to communicate with her clients, and failure to cooperate with the ODC. Respondent has disregarded the professional responsibilities she owes to her clients, and she has expressed no remorse for her actions in jeopardizing her clients’ legal matters and delaying the resolution of their cases. Respondent’s chronic failure to hfiCooperate with the ODC has caused undue delays and burdened an already taxed disciplinary system. The baseline sanction for this misconduct is unquestionably a suspension from the practice of law.

In light of the numerous aggravating factors present in this case, in particular respondent’s prior disciplinary record for similar misconduct, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law, we conclude a lengthy suspension is appropriate. In similar cases involving multiple clients, we have imposed suspensions ranging from two to three years. See In re: Szuba, 01-1877 (La.10/5/01), 797 So.2d 41 (two-year suspension imposed for violations arising from four client complaints involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate, and failure to return property at the termination of representation); In re: Boudreau, 00-3158 (La.1/5/01), 776 So.2d 428 (three-year suspension imposed on an attorney who neglected three clients’ matters, failed to communicate with the clients, failed to account for and return unearned fees, failed to repay a student loan, withheld client property, and failed to cooperate with the ODC); and In re: Powers, 99-2069 (La.9/24/99), 744 So.2d 1275 (three-year suspension imposed on an attorney with a prior disciplinary record for similar misconduct who neglected three clients’ legal matters, failed to communicate with the clients, failed to account for and return unearned fees, and failed to cooperate with the ODC). The two-year suspension recommended by the disciplinary board herein is consistent with this jurisprudence. Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Brenda W. 117Waltzer, Louisiana Bar Roll number 19821, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

      . Mr. Adams denied ever receiving such a discovery request from respondent.

      . In 1998, respondent was admonished by the disciplinary board for neglecting a legal matter and failing to communicate with her client (98-AD B-043).

      . The hearing committee also found “a concurrent disciplinary proceeding regarding similar factual circumstances” to be an aggravating factor, presumably referring to the Jou-bert and Krilov matters. However, as the disciplinary board correctly pointed out in its report, the disposition of those matters was not yet final and therefore they were not properly considered in aggravation.

      . The record reflects that the disciplinary board administrator mailed a notice of the Januaiy 21, 2003 hearing to respondent at her home address on December 10, 2002. There is no indication that the notice was not received.


author: liPER CURIAM.

text:
    Dana BREAUX, et al. v. STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-1706.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   liPER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, former employees of relator, Stewart Enterprises, Inc., filed the instant suit, alleging that they were wrongfully terminated by relator. Relator filed exceptions of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and prematurity, on the ground that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to mandatory binding- arbitration. The district court overruled relator’s exceptions, finding plaintiffs’ claims arising from their termination fell outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement. The court of appeal denied relator’s request for supervisory relief.

Relator now seeks relief in this court. It argues the district court exceeded its authority in addressing the scope of the arbitration agreement, because the agreement provides the “arbitrator will decide whether the matter is subject to arbitration as defined herein.”

In Collins v. Prudential Insurance Co., 99-1423 (La.1/19/00), 752 So.2d 825, we stated:

Before a district court may compel arbitration, the trial judge must make two preliminary determinations. First, the trial judge must ensure that a valid arbitration agreement between the parties exists. Second, the judge must decide whether the dispute at issue falls within the scope of the agreement.

A review of the district court’s judgment indicates it failed to pass on the | ^threshold issue identified in Collins — i.e., whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. In the event the district court determines the arbitration agreement to be valid, the unique language of arbitration agreement in the instant case compels a second level of inquiry: whether the agreement clearly and unmistakably provides that the parties have agreed to submit the question of arbi-trability to the arbitrator rather than to the courts. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79, 83, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002) (“[t]he question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the ‘question of arbitrability ’ is ‘an issue for judicial determination [ujnless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise’ ”) (quoting AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986)) (emphasis by the Court).

Because the district court failed to pass on either of these issues, we find it appropriate to vacate the district court’s judgment on relator’s exceptions and remand the case to the district court for a determination of these issues.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


text:
    W. Simmons SANDOZ, in His Capacity as the Bankruptcy Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Nida Abel Balbeisi v. US AGENCIES CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-2353.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re US Agencies Casualty Insurance Company, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 497,664; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 1373.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Berry M. CHANDLER.
    No. 2004-KK-2359.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 24, 2004.
   In re Chandler, Berry M.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 01-F-0230; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39449-KW.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Ricky DONNELL, Lawrence Roberts and A.L. Buddy Rhodes v. FRANKLIN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2004-CC-2366.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 28, 2004.
   In re Franklin Parish School Board;— Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 37,680, 37,681; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39462-CW.

Denied as moot.


text:
    A.L. Buddy RHODES v. W. Fox MCKEITHEN, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of State, and J.W. Mercer, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2367.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 28, 2004.
   In re Mercer, J.W. et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 37,681; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39461-CW.

Denied as moot.


text:
    M.A. ALLEN, INC. v. Clyde J. JOHNSON.
    No. 2004-C-1452.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 29, 2004.
   In re Johnson, Clyde J.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 92149; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 0671.

Denied.


text:
    In re LOUISIANA NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ASBESTOS CASES.
    No. 2004-O-2281.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 29, 2004.
   In re Honeywell International, Inc.; H.B. Zachry Company; Murphy Oil USA, Inc.; American Cyanamid Company; Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (Delaware); Cleco Corporation; Cleco Power LLC; Capital Rubber and Specialty Company, Inc.; Garlock Sealing Technologies, L.L.C. f/k/a; Garlock Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Motion to Vacate and Application for Rehearing, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 470-814 & All Other Cases.

Denied.


text:
    Gregory K. MOROUX, et al. v. Andre F. TOCE. Daniel Lombas, et al. v. Gregory K. Moroux, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2384.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 29, 2004.
   In re Moroux, Gregory K. et al.; Mor-oux, Gregory K. A Professional Law Corporation; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 99-5383-F, 2000-1207-E; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 04-01220.

Denied.


text:
    Kenneth SCOTT v. Miranda MARTIN, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2389.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 29, 2004.
   In re Martin, Miranda et al.; State Farm Fire & Casualty Company; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2002-4012; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 04-00905.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Jesse BALSEIRO v. SAENGER THEATRE PARTNERSHIP, LTD., et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2393.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Sept. 29, 2004.
   In re Saenger Theatre Partnership, LTD., et al.; New Orleans Theatre Association, Inc.; Disney Theatrical Productions, LTD; TIG Insurance Company; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2001-20576; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-1663.

Stay denied, writ application denied.


text:
    COSMAR COMPANY v. Ralph SLAUGHTER, Secretary of the Department of Revenue and Taxation (Cynthia Bridges Was Substituted as Defendant in Place of Ralph Slaughter).
    No. 2004-C-1558.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Cosmar Company; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 417,698; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1310.

Denied.


text:
    Senora ZENON, Individually and as Administratrix and Natural Tutrix of the Estate of Her Minor Child, Katrice Zenon, and Keita Jones, Individually and as Administratrix and Natural Tutrix of the Estate of Her Minor Children, Tyrielle Lane and Trase Lane v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2004-C-1549.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Zenon, Señora et al.; Jones, Keita et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2002-12480; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 0971. Denied.


text:
    James HUNTER, Individually and on Behalf of His Deceased Wife, Hattie Hunter v. Dr. Elma LEDOUX, Dr. Phelan, Dr. Gillespi, Dr. Mclean and Touro Hospital a/k/a Touro Clinic a/k/a Touro Infirmary Hospital and other Consolidated Cases.
    No. 2004-C-1542.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Touro Hospital a/k/a; Touro Clinic a/k/a; Touro Infirmary Hospital; — Defendant/s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, Nos. 94-1561, 95-18687, 96-12478; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-1131, 2003-CA-2028, 2003-CA-2029.

Denied.


text:
    Rodney J. STRAIN, Jr., in His Capacity as Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish v. Clare W. TRINCHARD, Esq., Leigh Ann Schell, Esq. Trinchard & Trinchard, L.L.C., and Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    No. 2004-CC-1508.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Trinchard, Clare W. Esq. et ah; Schell, Leigh Ann Esq.; Trinchard & Trinchard, L.L.C.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2003-11456; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 2643.

Denied.


text:
    Keith JONES, Jr., et al. v. Lowery W. SMITH and Red Oak Land, L.L.C.
    No. 2004-CD-2304.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Red Oak Land L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 469,594; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 1852.

Denied.


text:
    Lucille BOUY v. TECHE ELECTRIC.
    No. 2004-CC-1511.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Teche Electric Cooperative, Inc. et al.; Wausau Insurance Company; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. #4, No. 01-04323; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 04-00581.

Denied.


text:
    Aletha Rena McCastle SPRUEL v. Lionel SPRUEL.
    No. 2004-C-1512.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Spruel, Aletha Rene McCastle;— Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Family Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 137,214; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1562.

Denied.


text:
    EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION v. JE MERIT CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-1513.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re JE Merit Constructors Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 498-027; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 0320.

Denied.


text:
    Julie BOUDREAUX v. Stefan G. PRIBIL, M.D.
    No. 2004-CC-1515.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Pribil, Stefan G. M.D.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 95813; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 2874.

Denied.


text:
    Ronald L. HANKS v. KINETICS GROUP, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-1517.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Hanks, Ronald L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation # 3, No. 02-05904; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 03-1354.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Lawrence A. MARANTO, Jr. and Janet Dugas Maranto v. Terry NELSON, P.T., the Rehability Health Services, Inc., et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1520.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Nelson, Terry et al.; Rehability Health Services, Inc. d/b/a; Rehability Center; American Specialty Surplus Lines Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 514-695, 540-913; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-562.

Denied.


text:
    Mary NAPOLEON v. ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, Truckers Express, Inc., and Robert Gordon.
    No. 2004-C-1525.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Truckers Express, Inc.; Nobel Insurance Company; — Defendánt(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 97-7930; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1602.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Daphne LERAY, Glenn Leray and Elaine Leray v. STATE of Louisiana through the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
    No. 2004-CC-1528.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana et al.; Department of Transportation & Development;— Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of La-fourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 80852; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 0130.

Denied.


text:
    Melba Elaine JESSOP, et al. v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1529.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Alexandria City of et al.; Alexandria/Pineville Area Convention & Visitors Bureau; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 203,781; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1500.

Denied.


text:
    Robert D. RYAN and Patricia Ann Adams Ryan v. Robert Glen LEE and Mary Alice Williams Lee.
    No. 2004-C-1531.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Lee, Robert Glen et al.; Lee, Mary Alice Williams; — Defendant^); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court Div., No. 22750; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,352-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Kathy WILKERSON v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS FIRE DEPARTMENT.
    No. 2004-C-1548.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Wilkerson, Kathy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District Eight, No. 00-01512; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1550.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana, Pontchartrain Levee District v. ST. CHARLES AIRLINE LANDS, INC.
    No. 2004-C-1552.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Louisiana, State of; Pontchartrain Levee District; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 38,431, 42,354, 38,431, 42,354; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No(s). 03-CA-1292, 03-CA-1293, 04-CA-20.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Glenda Poole SMITH v. KAYE’S FOOD MARKET, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1560.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Smith, Glenda Poole; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 23,433; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,518-CA.

Denied.


text:
    RABURN AND ASSOCIATES v. BURGUNDY OAKS L.L.C., and James A. Young.
    No. 2004-C-1569.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Burgundy Oaks, L.L.C. et al.; Young, James A.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 450,890; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,428-CA.

Denied.


text:
    STRANCO, INC. v. Samuel R. WOODS, Jr., d/b/a Vittles and Suds.
    No. 2004-C-1580.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Woods, Samuel R. et al.; Vittles and Suds; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 97-10090, 2001-14539; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2003 CA 1156, 2003 CA 1157.

Denied.


text:
    STRANCO, INC. v. Samuel R. WOODS, Jr., d/b/a Vittles and Suds.
    No. 2004-C-1581.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Stranco Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 97-10090, 2001-14539; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2003 CA 1156, 2003 CA 1157.

Denied.


text:
    Joseph WILLIAMS v. LUHR BROTHERS, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-1582.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Luhr Brothers, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 469,655; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 0695.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Donna FITCH v. TOYS “R” US-DELAWARE, INC., Patent Plant Services Harsco Corporation.
    No. 2004-C-1583.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Fitch, Donna; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 521-906; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-CA-68.

Denied.


text:
    Ronald L. HANKS v. KINETICS GROUP, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-1693.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Kinetics Systems Caribe Inc., et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation District #3, No. 02-05904; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 03-1354.

Denied.


text:
    Elodie Anne F. ROWELL, et al. v. MANNA PROPERTIES OF HOUMA, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1488.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Houma Building Partnership;— Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2002-16771; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0606.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Dean APPEL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KP-0495.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Appel, Dean; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, Slidell City Court, No. 02KC3342; 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 358,906; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 2619.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Stephen O’Neal ALGER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KP-0500.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Alger, Stephen O’Neal; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 341420, 321479, 329188/9, 325,459; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003-EA-2544.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert TASSIN, Jr. v. Burl CAIN, Warden.
    No. 2004-KP-0545.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Tassin, Robert Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 86-3579.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Marvin R. WILTON, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2308.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Wilton, Marvin R. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 6053-93; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 02-01445.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darryl WEBSTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2319.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Webster, Darryl; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 390-438; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-0965.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John GROCE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2334.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Groce, John; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C643; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00173.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles CUTLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2371.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Cutler, Charles;' — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 14089-93; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00338.

Denied. Untimely and repetitive. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kendrick P. THORNE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2380.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Thorne, Kendrick P.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 02-1727; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-0796.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James WEST v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003KH-2451.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re West, James; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 04-00-240; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 1109.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone ADGER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2458.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Adger, Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 199,956; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 35,-414-KA.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles R. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2459.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Jones, Charles R.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lasalle, 28th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 54340; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00746.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Anthony ARMSTRONG v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2484.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Armstrong, Anthony; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. O, Nos. 84030, 95-CR82953; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-00391.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Billy Ray DILLARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2485.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Dillard, Billy Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Carroll, 6th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 87044.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eugene H. MOORE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2487.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Moore, Eugene H.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Cameron, 38th Judicial District Court Div. 0, Nos. 85939, 80754; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 03-00071.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald ALEXANDER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2501.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Alexander, Ronald; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 394-543; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-0970.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael MILLER, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2504.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Miller, Michael Sr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 332641; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0790.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronnel WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2517.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Williams, Ronnel; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 99-7942; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KH-929.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Guy JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2522.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Jenkins, Guy; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 333-980; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1161.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael SAMPSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2532.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Sampson, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 98-135, 98,136; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KM 02-01169.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David SINGLETON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2534.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Singleton, David; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 251-934.

Denied. Untimely, not cognizable, and repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gary Wayne ASHLEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2541.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Ashley, Gary Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 201984; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37941-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tyrone JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2543.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Jenkins, Tyrone; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 82665, 83973; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00363.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Keith Bell BRELAND v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2555.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Breland, Keith Bell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 95-CR2-061266; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0803.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward BADON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2560.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Badon, Edward; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 367-715; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1097.

Denied. See, e.g., Deloch v. Whitley, 96-1901, p. 1 (La.11/22/96), 684 So.2d 349; see also Coe v. Bell, 161 F.3d 320, 352-55 (6th Cir.1998).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Corey Wayne CARROLL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2567.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Carroll, Corey Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 116643-94; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00813.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. August WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2597.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Williams, August; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 202-536.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph AUGUSTINE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2611.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Augustine, Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 394-135; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1010.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Freddie Lee ROSS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2725.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Ross, Freddie Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 34,743.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Harold THOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-1823.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Thomas, Harold; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 986334; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-KH-114.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the application to the district court for enforcement of its order of February 11, 2004 directing the court reporter to produce transcripts, if it has not done so already. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward J. HEBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-2474.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Hebert, Edward J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 79770; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 03-00296.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. Because the terms of the statutes under which relator was sentenced do not include a prohibition on diminution of sentence pursuant to R.S. 15:571.3, see R.S. 14:31, relator’s sentence is amended to delete the prohibition. Relator’s eligibility is to be determined by the Department of Corrections pursuant to R.S. 15:571.3. State ex rel. Simmons v. Stalder, 93-1852 (La.1/26/96), 666 So.2d 661; cf. State ex rel. Meeks v. State, 98-1930 (La.1/29/99), 736 So.2d 820; St. Amant v. 19th J.D.C., 94-0567 (La.9/3/96), 678 So.2d 536. The district court is directed to make an entry in the minutes reflecting this change. In all other respects, the writ is denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Deonta GRAY and Jonta Gray.
    No. 2004-KK-1197.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 433-357; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-1240.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Louis MITCHELL.
    No. 2003-KP-3499.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Mitchell, Louis; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, Nos. 195-533, 195-492, 195-491,195-564.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Mary APPACROMBIE.
    No. 2004-KP-0484.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Appacrombie, Mary; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 187,835; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38622-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Paul METZLER IV.
    No. 2004-KP-0487.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Metzler, Paul IV; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 15-707-J; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-2224.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brandon STEVENSON.
    No. 2004-KO-0863.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Stevenson, Brandon; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 01-1062; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1146.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Corey PICOU.
    No. 2004-K-0869.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Picou, Corey; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 433-979; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-KA-2070.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tremaine HEIM.
    No. 2004-K-0884.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Heim, Tremaine; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 424-545; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-KA-0957.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Allen RHEA.
    No. 2004-KO-0901.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Rhea, Allen, — Defendant, applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Division D, No. 01-2007, to the Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1273; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Section E, No. 394-578; to the Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-KA-0091.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Troy GRANT.
    No. 2004-KO-0922.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Grant, Troy; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 002002; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KA 0069.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John CRAFT.
    No. 2004-K-0923.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Craft, John; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 429-463; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-KA-1852.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ernest Ray WILSON, Jr.
    No. 2004-KO-0934.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Wilson, Ernest Ray Jr.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 225045; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,219-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Linroy DOUGLAS.
    No. 2004-KO-0955.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Douglas, Linroy; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 00-7001; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1266.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terry PIERRE.
    No. 2004-KO-0959.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Pierre, Terry; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 01-5658; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1306.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael BARTLEY.
    No. 2004-K-1055.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Bartley, Michael; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 03-1596; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1382.

Denied.

i


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David ALEXANDER.
    No. 2004-K-1063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Alexander, David; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 01J-423(2); to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-1291.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Daryl DIXON.
    No. 2004-KK-1470.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Dixon, Daryl; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 224,862; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38858-KW.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    James HUNTER, Individually and on Behalf of His Deceased Wife, Hattie Hunter v. Dr. Elma LEDOUX, Dr. Phelan, Dr. Gillespi, Dr. McLean and Touro Hospital a/k/a Touro Clinic a/k/a Touro Infirmary Hospital and Other Consolidated Cases.
    No. 2004-C-2230.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Louisiana State University Medical School; Louisiana, State of; LSU School of Medicine; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, Nos. 94-1561, 95-18687, 96-12478; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-1131, 2003-CA-2028, 2003-CA-2029.

Denied.


text:
    THE COUNSELING AND THERAPY CENTER, L.L.C. v. Darryl SHANKLE, d/b/a the Shankle Insurance Agency, the Shankle Insurance Agency & Matrix Industries, Ltd.
    No. 2004-C-1499.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Shankle, Darryl d/b/a; Shankle Insurance Agency; Shankle Insurance Agency & Matrix Industries, LTD; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 465,407; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 1574.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Mary E. JONES v. CAMELOT COLLEGE, INC.
    No. 2004-C-1497.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Camelot College Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 477,795; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA 0503.

Denied.


text:
    Glenda Poole SMITH v. KAYE’S FOOD MARKET, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1498.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re McKeithen, Marjorie Funderburk; Tingle, Edna; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 23,433; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,518-CA.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Leonard J. VAUGHN v. Tonya E. YOUNG, et al.
    No. 2004-C-1500.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Vaughn, Leonard J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 95800-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1586.

Denied.


text:
    Maralynn GRAHAM and Harold Graham v. HIGHPOINT ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, INC. and Essex Insurance Company.
    No. 2004-CC-1501.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Highpoint Entertainment Center Inc. et al.; Essex Insurance Co.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 95-363; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 2855.

Denied.


text:
    Gerard PERRON v. ST. LANDRY PARISH ECONOMIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
    No. 2004-C-1502.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re St. Landry Parish Economic Industrial Development District; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District No. 2, No. 01-09126; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1061.

Denied.


text:
    Marjorie Lane MILLER v. CHRISTUS ST. PATRICK HOSPITAL.
    No. 2004-C-1196.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Christus St. Patrick Hospital;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 3, No. 00-09905; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. OS-1631.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Michael J. MARCHAND & Lizanne Marchand v. AMSOUTH BANK, Lloyd Cockerham & Bill Myhand.
    No. 2004-CC-1208.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re AmSouth Bank et al.; Cockerham, Lloyd; Myhand, Bill; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 73,761; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 2167.

Denied. Issues may be reurged.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    AMERICAN INTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and Randall Service Corporation v. Melissa K. FORSYTHE, Tutrix of Minor Child, Shannonray W. Allison; and Lance Allison, Minor Child.
    No. 2004-C-1384.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re American Interstate Insurance Company et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, Office of Worker’s Compensation District 1 W, No. 01-07475; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,283-WCA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Kelly D. ADAMS v. William E. TILLEY, District Attorney.
    No. 2004-CC-0547.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Adams, Kelly; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 54,169; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-443.

Denied.


text:
    Nathaniel R. CODE v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KP-3524.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Code, Nathaniel R. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 138,860.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., recused.


text:
    Kenneth PERRY v. PERRY & SONS VAULT & GRAVE SERVICE.
    No. 2004-C-1616.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Scott Perry Jr. Sanitation Services Inc.; Louisiana Commerce & Trade Association Self-Insurers Fund; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 02, No. 02-04847; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1519.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    Kenneth PERRY v. PERRY & SONS VAULT & GRAVE SERVICE.
    No. 2004-C-1504.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Perry & Sons Vault & Grave Service; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 2, No. 02-4847; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1519.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    Mavis DURR v. ALBERTSON’S, INC.
    No. 2004-C-1546.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Durr, Mavis; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 461,365; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CA1311.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    Kenneth PERRY v. PERRY & SONS VAULT & GRAVE SERVICE.
    No. 2004-C-1610.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Perry, Kenneth; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of .Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 02, No. 02-04847; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-1519.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    Troy ROBICHAUX, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2253.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Dow Chemical Company; Dupree, Ivy; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 56,803; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 1784.

Stay denied. Writ denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Randy STANFORD, et al. v. TOWN OF BALL.
    No. 2004-CC-2302.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Ball, Town of; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 178,690-F; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 04-00983.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Darrell LEE v. Richard STALDER.
    No. 2003-CI-1325.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Lee, Darrell; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 467,941; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 0368.

Denied.


text:
    Clifton JOSEPH, et al. v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., et al.
    No. 2004-CC-1506.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Joseph, Clifton, et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 506,688; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 2829.

Granted. Judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. It is ordered that the ruling on the exception of improper cumulation and joinder be deferred pending completion of discovery by the parties. Case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry Dean ROBERTSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2004-KH-1563.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Robertson Larry Dean; Plaintiff: Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 04-164532.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the filing to the district court for its consideration. The district court is directed to provide this Court with a copy of its ruling.


text:
    In re CONFIDENTIAL PARTY.
    No. 2004-OB-2390.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Confidential Party; — Plaintiff; Applying for Petition to Transfer to Disability Inactive Status.

Denied.


text:
    Coralee MONK, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS and Dr. Steven Jurisich.
    No. 2004-CC-2420.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 1, 2004.
   In re Louisiana State of et al.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 419,922; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 2123.

Writ denied.

VICTORY, J., vote to grant and to reinstate the trial court judgment.

TRAYLOR, J., vote to grant and to reinstate the trial court judgment.

WEIMER, J., vote to grant and to reinstate the trial court judgment.


text:
    Vana ANDREWS v. Margaret DUFOUR, the Government Employees Insurance Company and Ford Motor Company. Vana Andrews v. Margaret Dufour, the Government Employees Insurance Company and Ford Motor Company.
    No. 2004-C-1957.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 4, 2004.
   In re Andrews, Vana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 92-13762; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-736, 2003-CA-1848.

Not considered. See order dated September 30, 2004.

JOHNSON, J., recused.


text:
    In re HARVEY TERM LITIGATION.
    No. 2004-CC-1749.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   In re Exxon Mobil Corporation; Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc.; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 01-8708; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0365.

Denied.


text:
    In re MEDICAL MALPRACTICE OF FRANCIS KIRKINDOLL.
    No. 2004-CC-1670.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   In re Ratcliff, Thelma; Cascio, Sandra; Sellers, Tami; — Other(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 477,857-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 39007-CW.

Denied.


text:
    In re HARVEY TERM LITIGATION.
    No. 2004-CC-1633.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   In re. Alpha Technical Services Inc.;— Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 01-8708; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-C-0168.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of SUCCESSION OF Herman CELESTINE, Jr.
    No. 2004-CC-1595.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   In re Smith, Barbara Celestine; — Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 16,596; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CW 1134.

Denied.


text:
    Janice Bedell TODESCO v. John A. TODESCO.
    No. 2004-CC-2418.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   In re Todesco, John A.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 592-220; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-921.

Denied.


text:
    Maurice ROBERT, et al. v. AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-2363.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   In re Reilly-Benton Co. Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 02-19504; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2004-C-1577, 2004-C-1578, 04-C-1580.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Barry J. CHAMPAGNE, Sr., et al. v. CHANDELEUR HOMES, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-1726.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   In re Chandeleur Homes, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 65,582; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 04-00343.

Denied.


text:
    George FARBER, M.D., et al. v. Eric TABOR, M.D.
    No. 2004-CC-1716.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2004.
   In re Tabor, Eric M.D.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 554-957; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-585.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.