text:
    In re Michael H. O’KEEFE, Jr.
    No. 2010-B-1911.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 5, 2010.
   | .ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Michael H. O’Keefe, Jr., an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension based upon his conviction of a serious crime. In re: O’Keefe, 09-1059 (La.5/27/09), 9 So.3d 846.

UNDERLYING FACTS

In 2007, respondent was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from unlawful activity. The indictment alleged that respondent participated in a “house flipping” scam which involved fraudulent applications for federally insured mortgage financing through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). On April 20, 2009, the original indictment was dismissed and respondent pled guilty to a one-count superseding bill of information for making false statements in a transaction with HUD, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1010. He was sentenced to Lserve eighteen months in federal prison and was ordered to pay $686,565.55 in restitution, representing the amount of HUD’s financial loss.

According to the factual basis for the guilty plea, Citywide Mortgage, Inc. (“Citywide”) was the center of a HUD “house flipping” scam from 2001 to 2008. Respondent was the president and owner of Citywide, which provided conventional mortgage loans as well as federally insured mortgage financing (“HUD loans”) for low-income home buyers who could not afford the standard 10-20 percent down payment ordinarily required by lending institutions for conventional mortgages. Under the HUD loan program, HUD insures 97% of the loan and is responsible for paying the outstanding loan amount to the financial institution holding the mortgage if the mortgagor defaults on the loan. This guarantee makes these loans very marketable on the secondary mortgage market because there is no risk to the mortgage holder. Citywide became a direct endorsement lender for HUD, and as such, could approve loans for low-income buyers and submit them directly to the Federal Housing Administration for HUD mortgage insurance. HUD loans were approximately 65% of Citywide’s business.

|sTo accomplish the “house flipping” scam, a corrupt real estate investor would first purchase a blighted property for a nominal amount. The investor then arranged for a “straw buyer” to purchase the property. The straw buyer was instructed to complete a fraudulent HUD loan application with Citywide, and in turn, Citywide “qualified” the straw buyer for a HUD-insured loan by submitting false information about the applicant’s taxes, credit, and employment, as well as an appraisal that inflated the true value of the property being purchased. No independent verification was undertaken by HUD of this information because Citywide had been entrusted with the fiduciary duty of being a direct endorsement lender.

After the loan was approved, the corrupt real estate investor resold (or “flipped”) the property to the straw buyer at an inflated price based on the fraudulent appraisal. By using a HUD-qualified straw buyer, the investor was able to complete the illusion of a legitimate real estate transaction and then profit from the sale of the overvalued property to someone who never intended to move into the property and was unable to meet his financial obligations as a homeowner. After a period of non-payment by the straw buyer, the loan would go into default, foreclosure would begin, and HUD would assume the loss and the responsibility to pay off the mortgage.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In 2009, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent, alleging that his conduct as set forth above violated Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(c) |4(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent filed an answer generally admitting the factual allegations of the formal charges, but denying Citywide was the “center” of the “house flipping” scheme. Respondent also admitted that he violated the ethical rules as charged, for which an “appropriate sanction” should be imposed.

This matter then proceeded to a formal hearing. The ODC introduced evidence of respondent’s conviction and offered the testimony of Aimee Peralta, an employee of the HUD Office of the Inspector General and the lead agent responsible for investigating HUD’s case against respondent.

Respondent was incarcerated on the date of the hearing and thus did not attend. His counsel provided a letter to the hearing committee in lieu of his testimony.

Hearing Committee Report

The hearing committee found that based upon the record and the testimony of Ms. Peralta, which it deemed credible, respondent was involved in and punished for criminal activities which constitute a serious crime under Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19. Turning to a discussion of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s conviction, the committee determined the applicable baseline sanction is disbarment. In aggravation, the committee recognized the following factors: a dishonest or selfish motive and substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1983). In | ^mitigation, the committee observed that respondent has no prior disciplinary record and has suffered the imposition of other penalties or sanctions.

Based upon these findings, and considering “this is a clear cut case of fraud,” the committee recommended respondent be permanently disbarred.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report and recommendation.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

The disciplinary board found the hearing committee’s factual findings are not manifestly erroneous and adopted same. The board also made its own findings of fact. Based on these findings, the board determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged in the formal charges.

The board found respondent intentionally violated duties owed to the public, resulting in actual financial harm to HUD. The baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is disbarment.

In mitigation, the board found the following factors: absence of a prior disciplinary record, cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and imposition of other penalties or sanctions. As aggravating factors, the board found a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and substantial experience in the practice of law.

Considering respondent’s misconduct in light of the permanent disbarment guidelines and the prior jurisprudence of this court, the board recommended respondent be permanently disbarred.

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). When the disciplinary proceedings involve an attorney who has been convicted of a crime, the conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt and the sole issue presented is whether respondent’s crimes warrant discipline, and if so, the extent thereof. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19(E); In re: Boudreau, 02-0007 (La.4/12/02), 815 So.2d 76; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Wilkinson, 562 So.2d 902 (La.1990). The discipline to be imposed in a given case depends upon the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances of the offense, and the extent of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Perez, 550 So.2d 188 (La.1989).

Here, respondent stands convicted of making a materially false statement to HUD for the purpose of obtaining mortgage insurance. This crime is a felony under federal law and clearly warrants serious discipline. Indeed, respondent concedes that disbarment is a proper sanction for his conduct. However, in their respective reports, the hearing committee and the disciplinary board have concluded that respondent’s offenses are so egregious that he should be permanently prohibited from applying for readmission to the bar.

We agree. In Appendix E to Supreme Court Rule XIX, we set forth guidelines illustrating the types of conduct which might warrant permanent disbarment. While these guidelines are not intended to bind this court in its decision-making process, they present useful information concerning the types of conduct which might be considered worthy of permanent disbarment. For purposes of the instant case, Guideline 6 is relevant. That guideline provides:

17GUIDELINE 6. Insurance fraud, including but not limited to staged accidents or widespread runner-based solicitation.

Respondent maintains this guideline does not apply to him because the crime of which he was convicted does not involve fraud. However, as explained above, the guidelines are illustrative in nature and do not constitute an exclusive list of conduct for which an attorney may be permanently disbarred. Moreover, in assessing discipline in the case of an attorney who has been convicted of a crime, we have often looked beyond the title of the offense to the facts of the conviction to determine the appropriate sanction. For example, in In re: Kirchberg, 03-0957 (La.9/26/03), 856 So.2d 1162, the lawyer was convicted of mail fraud arising out of a runner-based solicitation scheme. He admitted he paid runners to solicit personal injury clients for his law practice and received illegal payments from medical providers in exchange for referring his clients to the providers for medical treatment. Concluding that the lawyer’s conduct was “precisely the type of reprehensible conduct” addressed by Guideline 6, we imposed permanent disbarment.

Similarly, the underlying facts of respondent’s conviction demonstrate that his conduct represents a very serious ethical breach. Respondent defrauded the federal government into guaranteeing hundreds of thousands of dollars in mortgage loans to unqualified “straw buyers.” He accomplished this by submitting fraudulent loan applications and bogus appraisals that inflated the true value of the property being purchased. After the HUD-backed loans were sold on the secondary mortgage market, the straw buyers defaulted, leaving HUD responsible. As in Kirchberg, this reprehensible conduct is clearly covered by Guideline 6.

Accordingly, we will accept the disciplinary board’s recommendation and impose permanent disbarment.

1 ¡¿DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that the name of Michael H. O’Keefe, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 2029, be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana be revoked. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 24(A), it is further ordered that respondent be permanently prohibited from being readmitted to the practice of law in this state. 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.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

      .18 U.S.C. § 1010 provides:
      Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining any loan or advance of credit from any person, partnership, association, or corporation with the intent that such loan or advance of credit shall be offered to or accepted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for insurance, or for the purpose of obtaining any extension or renewal of any loan, advance of credit, or mortgage insured by such Department, or the acceptance, release, or substitution of any security on such a loan, advance of credit, or for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of such Department, makes, passes, utters, or publishes any statement, knowing the same to be false, or alters, forges, or counterfeits any instrument, paper, or document, or utters, publishes, or passes as true any instrument, paper, or document, knowing it to have been altered, forged, or counterfeited, or willfully overvalues any security, asset, or income, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

      . Respondent had already paid $200,000 of the restitution amount as of the date of his sentencing.

      . The straw buyers were usually family members of the corrupt real estate investor, the working poor, or destitute or drug addicted persons. They never took possession of the property they had allegedly purchased and were paid between $500 and $2,000 for their role in the transaction.

      . The committee indicated that “this matter proceeded on a deemed admitted basis,” which is in error as respondent did file an answer to the formal charges. However, the committee then noted that its report was limited to a discussion of the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct, which is a correct statement given the criminal conviction at issue. See In re: King, 09-1560 (La. 1/8/10), 33 So.3d 873 (in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding based upon a criminal conviction, “the sole issue to be determined is whether the crime warrants discipline, and if so, the extent thereof”).

      . The committee also noted the "complicated and complex nature of the offenses” committed by respondent. While true, this is not a recognized aggravating factor under the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Ruben HERNANDEZ, Jr.
    No. 2010-B-1927.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 5, 2010.
   ^ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

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

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August 2007, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent in 07-DB-042. Respondent answered the formal charges, denying any misconduct. The matter then proceeded to a formal hearing on the merits, conducted by the hearing committee in March 2008 and April 2008.

In August 2008, the ODC filed a second set of formal charges against respondent in 08-DB-062. Respondent answered the formal charges, denying any misconduct. The matter then proceeded to a formal hearing on the merits, conducted by a separate hearing committee in August 2009.

Thereafter, the two sets of formal charges were consolidated by order of the disciplinary board. The board subsequently filed in this court a single recommendation of discipline encompassing both sets of formal charges.

U07-DB-042

The Unauthorized Practice of Law Matter

Between August 3, 2002 and July 7, 2003, respondent was ineligible to practice law for failing to comply with mandatory continuing legal education (“MCLE”) requirements in 2001. While employed at the Workers’ Compensation Legal Clinic of Louisiana, Inc. (“Legal Clinic”), respondent performed legal work in connection with more than one hundred cases during the period of his ineligibility.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated Rule 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Failure to Cooperate Matter

Respondent failed to respond in writing to three disciplinary complaints, despite requesting and receiving numerous extensions. During his February 8, 2007 sworn statement, respondent insisted he had provided written responses to the ODC. However, he was unable to produce copies of the responses. The Legal Clinic provided the ODC with copies of the files related to the three complaints and a copy of all existing computer files used by respondent. None of the files included any responses to the complaints.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated Rule 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing committee determined the witnesses called by the ODC to testify regarding the unauthorized practice of law matter and the failure to cooperate matter “had no | ¡¡animus to tell anything but the truth, and their testimony was credible in all aspects.” Based on the testimony and the other evidence in the record, the committee found respondent was certified as ineligible to practice law from August 3, 2002 through July 7, 2003 based on his failure to obtain MCLE hours for 2001. While he was ineligible, he continued to practice law and performed legal work in connection with more than one hundred cases. The committee found respondent’s testimony that he never received notice of his ineligibility to be suspect and determined his neglect in permitting himself to be “blissfully ignorant of his failure to meet his CLE requirements and of his ineligibility to practice law” is sanctionable. The committee also found respondent’s failure to respond to the ODC’s requests for information and meetings are symptomatic of his “inability simply to come to grips with unpleasant circumstances.” The committee further found that many of respondent’s explanations and excuses were not credible or were otherwise insufficient. Based on these findings, the committee determined the ODC proved the formal charges by clear and convincing evidence.

The committee further determined respondent acted knowingly. In aggravation, the committee found a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses. The committee also noted its impression that respondent does not always pay sufficient attention to the details of his practice and that future charges may be precipitated by this lack of attention if he is not disciplined. In mitigation, the committee found the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive and personal or emotional problems (the illnesses and subsequent deaths of respondent’s grandparents as well as Hurricane Katrina, which he claimed interfered with his ability to respond to some of the ODC’s inquiries).

|4Under these circumstances, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day, with nine months deferred. The committee further recommended respondent be placed on supervised probation during the deferred portion of the suspension and that he be required to attend the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School. Finally, the committee recommended respondent pay half of the costs and expenses of these disciplinary proceedings.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report and recommendation.

08-DB-062

The Speeding Citation Matter

On January 24, 2008, respondent received a citation for speeding in Jefferson Parish. Respondent pled not guilty, and the matter was set for trial in First Parish Court on October 28, 2003. Respondent failed to appear for the trial, and the court issued an instanter attachment on October 29, 2003. On October 11, 2004, the court recalled the attachment and set the matter for trial on January 18, 2005. Despite receiving notice of the new trial date, respondent failed to appear for trial. The court issued a second instanter attachment on January 19, 2005. In July 2009, the prosecuting attorney dismissed the case against respondent.

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

|fi The Car Accident Matter

On Februaiy 21, 2003, respondent was traveling the wrong way on a one-way street in Jefferson Parish and collided with two other vehicles. Following the accident, the police officer noted in his report that respondent “had a very strong odor of an alcoholic beverage. His speech was slurred and he was very unsteady on his feet.” Another witness indicated respondent yelled obscenities and appeared to be intoxicated; however, she was not close enough to smell alcohol on him. Yet another witness indicated respondent smelled of alcohol, slurred or mumbled, and refused to exit his vehicle after the accident. Respondent indicated he was injured when the air bag deployed and had “whiplash, soreness, pain, [and] bloody nose.” He failed a field sobriety test and refused to take a chemical test for intoxication. Respondent was arrested and subsequently charged with driving while intoxicated and reckless operation of a motor vehicle. On April 15, 2003, respondent pled not guilty, and the matter was set for trial on August 11, 2008.

On June 24, 2003, respondent attended a hearing held by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Division of Administrative Law. Respondent testified at the hearing that, although he had been drinking before the accident, he was not intoxicated. Instead, he reported to the police officer that he had injured his head in the accident. He claimed the police officer took him to the hospital after arresting him, and the doctor reported that respondent was positive for alcohol use but “not clinically intoxicated] by ambulation or speech.” The doctor also reported that respondent sustained “blunt head trauma” but “no significant trauma.” Based on the doctor’s report and the police officer’s failure to document in the police report that respondent was taken to the hospital, the administrative law judge determined the Ispolice officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe respondent was under the influence of alcohol when the accident occurred and reinstated respondent’s driving privileges.

Respondent failed to appear for trial on August 11, 2003, and the court issued an instanter attachment. The attachment was recalled the next day, and the trial was re-set for December 10, 2003. Respondent requested and was granted a continuance until April 14, 2004. Respondent requested another continuance, which was denied. Nonetheless, respondent failed to appear for trial, and the court issued an instanter attachment. On October 11, 2004, the court recalled the attachment, and the matter was re-set for trial on February 22, 2005. Respondent requested two additional continuances, and the matter was re-set for trial on August 30, 2005. Following the court’s reconvening after Hurricane Katrina, trial was re-set for February 1, 2006. Respondent failed to appear for trial, and the court issued a third instanter attachment. The trial was eventually re-set for December 7, 2009. Respondent again failed to appear for trial, and the court issued another instanter attachment. Despite having knowledge of the attachment, respondent has failed to take any action to resolve the matter.

The ODC alleged respondent’s conduct violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(d).

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the hearing committee made the following factual findings:

17With respect to the speeding citation matter, the committee found that, on October 11, 2004, respondent received an in-court notice of a new trial date of January 18, 2005. Nevertheless, respondent failed to appear for the trial, and the court issued an attachment. The committee also found the matter was not resolved until the summer of 2009. With respect to the car accident matter, the committee found the doctor’s discharge summary was prepared hours after respondent’s car accident occurred, and the doctor found respondent suffered “no significant trauma.” The committee also determined respondent’s credibility was questionable. Regarding respondent’s numerous failures to appear for trial and the subsequent attachments, the committee made factual findings consistent with the underlying facts set forth above. The committee determined respondent clearly ignored court orders mandating his appearance in court at scheduled trials. The committee also found respondent was clearly impaired by alcohol at the time of the car accident.

Based on these facts, the committee determined respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct in both counts. However, the committee determined respondent did not violate Rule 8.4(b) because his criminal case is still pending.

The committee found the following aggravating factors present: prior disciplinary offenses (February 2004 diversion), a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct. The committee did not discuss whether any mitigating factors were present.

After considering this court’s prior jurisprudence involving similar misconduct and the aggravating factors present, the committee recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months.

| SNeither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s recommendation.

Disciplinary Board, Recommendation

07-DB-0J/.2 & 08-DB-062

After reviewing these consolidated matters, the disciplinary board determined the hearing committees’ factual findings are not manifestly erroneous. Based on those facts, the board determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the committees, with one exception: the board determined respondent also violated Rule 8.4(b) in the car accident matter. Based on the committee’s factual finding that respondent was impaired by alcohol at the time of the car accident, the board determined he engaged in criminal conduct in violation of this rule, noting that a criminal conviction is not required to find such a violation.

The board further determined respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His conduct in failing to appear for court on several occasions and failing to cooperate with the ODC caused actual harm to the legal system and the legal profession. His criminal conduct harmed both person and property. His unauthorized practice of law caused potential harm to several clients.

The board found the following aggravating factors present: 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, and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct. The only mitigating factor the board found was inexperience in the practice of law, which the board considered only with respect to respondent’s unauthorized | practice of law. After reviewing the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the applicable baseline sanction in this matter is suspension.

After considering this court’s prior jurisprudence involving similar misconduct and the aggravating factors present, the board recommended respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three years.

One board member dissented, recommending respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day and be required to attend the Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics School.

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

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters fall 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: Banks, 09-1212 (La.10/2/09), 18 So.3d 57. 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.

The record of this consolidated matter reveals respondent practiced law for eleven months while ineligible to do so, failed to cooperate with the ODC in three investigations, failed to appear in court for trial dates on numerous occasions, and 11ftcaused a car accident while driving under the influence of alcohol. Based on these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as found by the disciplinary board.

Having found evidence of professional misconduct, we now turn to a determination of 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).

The record reflects respondent acted knowingly, if not intentionally, in violating duties owed to his clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. He caused actual harm to the public, the legal system, and the legal profession, and he caused potential harm to several clients. We agree with the board that the baseline sanction is suspension. We also agree with the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the board. In addition, the mitigating factor of personal or emotional problems is present with respect to respondent’s failure to cooperate with the ODC.

Our prior eases involving similar misconduct indicate that separately, respondent’s acts of misconduct would warrant a suspension from the practice of law for one year and one day. See, e.g., In re: Fahrenholtz, 09-0748 (La.10/2/09), 18 So.3d 751 (attorney who was declared ineligible to practice law and who failed to cooperate with the ODC in two investigations was suspended for one year and one Inday); In re: Hardy, 03-0443 (La.5/2/03), 848 So.2d 511 (holding that the baseline sanction for practicing law while ineligible to do so is a suspension for one year and one day); In re: Baer, 09-1795 (La.11/20/09), 21 So.3d 941 (an attorney who was twice arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol was suspended for one year and one day). In light of these cases and the aggravating factors present, the three-year suspension recommended by the board is reasonable for respondent’s combined misconduct.

Accordingly, we will adopt the disciplinary board’s recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for three years.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees and disciplinary board, and considering the record, it is ordered that Ruben Hernandez, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 26834, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for three 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.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.

      . The police officer denied taking respondent to the hospital, claiming the EMTs checked respondent at the accident scene and found no serious injuries.


text:
    In re Yumeaka Robinson WASHINGTON.
    No. 2010-B-2257.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 5, 2010.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent “pre-nota-rized” assignment of insurance benefits forms, thereby misrepresenting that the document was executed before her by the signer, whose identity she verified. Prior to the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated respondent has violated Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Yumeaka Robinson Washington, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22570, be and she hereby is publicly reprimanded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 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.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    Leo POLLARD, Jr., et al. v. ALPHA TECHNICAL, et al. In re Harvey Term Litigation.
    No. 2010-CC-1836.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 5, 2010.
   PER CURIAM.

These consolidated applications arise from a judgment of the court of appeal which vacated the district court’s May 26, 2010 judgment granting a “Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class and to Amend the January 11, 2010 Order to Reset Deadlines.” Based on our review of the court of appeal’s judgment, we find no indication the court of appeal considered the district court’s subsequent May 28, 2010 “Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement and Certifying Class Action for Settlement Purposes,” although relators represent a copy of the May 28, 2010 order was submitted to the court of appeal. Because the district court’s May 28, 2010 order provides detailed factual findings regarding the certification of a settlement class for purposes of La.Code Civ. P. art. 591(B), we find the court of appeal should have considered this order before it vacated the district court’s order granting preliminary approval to the settlement and certifying a settlement class.

Accordingly, without reaching the merits, we now grant the consolidated applications for the sole purpose of vacating the judgment of the court of appeal, and remanding the case to the court of appeal for reconsideration of its judgment after appropriate review of the district court’s May 28, 2010 order.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in this opinion.


text:
    Leo POLLARD, Jr., et al. v. ALPHA TECHNICAL, et al. In re Harvey Term Litigation.
    No. 2010-CC-1762.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 5, 2010.
   PER CURIAM.

These consolidated applications arise from a judgment of the court of appeal which vacated the district court’s May 26, 2010 judgment granting a “Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class and to Amend the January 11, 2010 Order to Reset Deadlines.” Based on our review of the court of appeal’s judgment, we find no indication the court of appeal considered the district court’s subsequent May 28, 2010 “Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement and Certifying Class Action for Settlement Purposes,” although relators represent a copy of the May 28, 2010 order was submitted to the court of appeal. Because the district court’s May 28, 2010 order provides detailed factual findings regarding the certification of a settlement class for purposes of La.Code Civ. P. art. 591(B), we find the court of appeal should have considered this order before it vacated the district court’s order granting preliminary approval to the settlement and certifying a settlement class.

Accordingly, without reaching the merits, we now grant the consolidated applications for the sole purpose of vacating the judgment of the court of appeal, and remanding the case to the court of appeal for reconsideration of its judgment after appropriate review of the district court’s May 28, 2010 order.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in this opinion.


text:
    Leo POLLARD, Jr., et al. v. ALPHA TECHNICAL, et al. In re Harvey Term Litigation.
    No. 2010-CC-1844.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 5, 2010.
   PER CURIAM.

These consolidated applications arise from a judgment of the court of appeal which vacated the district court’s May 26, 2010 judgment granting a “Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class and to Amend the January 11, 2010 Order to Reset Deadlines.” Based on our review of the court of appeal’s judgment, we find no indication the court of appeal considered the district court’s subsequent May 28, 2010 “Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement and Certifying Class Action for Settlement Purposes,” although relators represent a copy of the May 28, 2010 order was submitted to the court of appeal. Because the district court’s May 28, 2010 order provides detailed factual findings regarding the certification of a settlement class for purposes of La. Code Civ. P. art. 591(B), we find the court of appeal should have considered this order before it vacated the district court’s order granting preliminary approval to the settlement and certifying a settlement class.

Accordingly, without reaching the merits, we now grant the consolidated applications for the sole purpose of vacating the judgment of the court of appeal, and remanding the case to the court of appeal for reconsideration of its judgment after appropriate review of the district court’s May 28, 2010 order.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in this opinion.


text:
    Daniel ARCENEAUX, et al. v. AMSTAR CORP., et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2251.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 5, 2010.
   In re American Sugar Refining Inc.; Amstar Corporation et al.; Amstar Sugar Corp.; Domino Sugar Company; Tate & Lyle North American Sugars Inc.; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Divs. B, E, Nos. 86-959, 105-703, 106-082; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1401.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenton TURNER.
    No. 2010-KK-2226.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 6, 2010.
   In re Turner, Kenton; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 497-405; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1167.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Teddy CHESTER v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 2010-KK-2179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 6, 2010.
   In re Chester, Teddy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 96-2598.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tajuan LEMAR.
    No. 2010-KK-2254.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 7, 2010.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 498-535; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0808.

Denied.


text:
    Mary Phyllis SOILEAU v. SMITH TRUE VALUE AND RENTAL, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2276.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Hartford Insurance Company; Smith Jr., Harry; Smith’s Hardware; Smith, Claire; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 69770-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01157.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Myrtis DEBOEST v. SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION.
    No. 2010-CC-1660.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Safety National Cas. Corp.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2009-2872; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00386.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bruce STIPE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2239.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Stipe, Bruce; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Prohibition, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 365-980; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1098.

The application is transferred to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion to correct an illegal sentence as relator shows by Inmates’ Request for Legal/Indigent Mail receipt that the application was submitted. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment. A copy of the application is attached.


text:
    In re Appeal of Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 10-PDB-001.
    No. 2010-OB-1659.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Lingefelt, Tommy L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 10-PDB-001.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 10-PDB-021.
    No. 2010-OB-1774.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Hall, Gertrude; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of the Attorney Disciplinary Board, No. 10-PDB-021.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    Emily NIKOLAUS v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.
    No. 2010-C-1638.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Baton Rouge City of; East Baton Rouge Par. of; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 553,558; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 2090.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eugene DORSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    Nos. 2004-KH-2229, 2006-KH-0013.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Dorsey, Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying for Enforcement of this Court’s action dated June 3, 2005 and June 2, 2006; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, No. 382-739; to the Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, No. 2004-K-0987.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Steven C. THOMAS.
    No. 2009-KO-0391.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Thomas, Steven C.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated December 18, 2009; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. J, No. 06-2569; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KA-521.

Reconsideration denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    Louis Floyd GALLET, Sr. and Edith B. Gallet v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2070.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Cameron International Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 584,486; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0948.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Louis Floyd GALLET, Sr. and Edith B. Gallet v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC., et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2080.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 584,486; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1036.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bernard SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-0157.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Smith, Bernard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 409-330; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-K-1405.

Denied.


text:
    Nathaniel R. CODE, Jr. v. Burl CAIN, Warden.
    No. 2009-KP-0113.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Code Jr., Nathaniel R.; — 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:
    STATE ex rel. Dennis L. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0202.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Jones, Dennis L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 282492; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 08-00178.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dennis Lynn JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0707.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Jones, Dennis Lynn; Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 282492; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 08-01409.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John S. LINDSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2050.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Lindsey, John S.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 388021; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0488.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerry MOORE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2185.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Moore, Jerry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 355706-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1023.

Denied.


text:
    Leonard GREEN v. LOUISIANA PAROLE BOARD.
    No. 2009-CI-2299.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Green, Leonard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 553,728; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0745.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Glen STYLES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2304.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Styles, Glen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 95-2328; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-958.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert BATES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2307.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Bates, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 94-5355; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-893.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles F. LAMBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2308.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Lambert, Charles F.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 390-583; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1193.

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. Wendell FACIANE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2309.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Faciane, Wendell; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 410578, 404356; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1340.

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. Troy McCLOUD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2332.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re McCloud, Troy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 02-6326; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-934.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles Ray LOVE, Sr., v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2333.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Love Sr., Charles Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 260147; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-00797.

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. James T. PRYOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2334.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Pryor, James T.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 93-CR9-55035, 93-CR1-55035; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW1454.

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. Robert McCLOUD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2335.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re McCloud, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 97-6582; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-861.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    George E. DAVIS v. LOUISIANA PAROLE BOARD, et al.
    No. 2009-CI-2337.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Davis, George E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Divs. 2, B, Nos. C560219, 560219; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CA 243.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vanessa FEDELE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2380.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Fedele, Vanessa; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 05-CR1-093363; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW1184.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick HAYNES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2381.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Haynes, Derrick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 366-924; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1105.

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. Larry SIMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2382.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Sims, Larry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 00-6313; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-987.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Samuel HULL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2384.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Hull, Samuel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. 1, No. 484-846; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1329.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bryan MEANS.
    No. 2010-K-0347.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Means, Bryan; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 145,185, 142,-140; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-489.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Latroy WHITE.
    No. 2010-K-0582.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re White, Robert Latroy; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 434,333; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009-KA-1766.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Juan G. SANDOVAL.
    No. 2010-KO-0588.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Sandoval, Juan G.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 467-652; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-0542.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darren O’Neal DYKES.
    No. 2010-KO-0589.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Dykes, Darren O’Neal; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 410597; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 1447.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Medjoure CHEFNEY.
    No. 2010-KO-0590.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Chefney, Medjoure; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 19715; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 1607.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry SIMS.
    No. 2010-KO-0596.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Sims, Larry; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 00-6313; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-509.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles L. HOLCOMBE.
    No. 2010-KO-0597.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Holcombe, Charles L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 417104; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009-KA-1309.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gary J. PEREZ.
    No. 2010-KO-0605.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Perez, Gary J.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 400883; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 1754.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jauve COLLINS.
    No. 2010-KO-0606.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Collins, Jauve; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 03-07-0231; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 1617.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Terrance LAWRENCE.
    No. 2010-K-0615.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Lawrence, Terrance; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 41-244; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-061-KA.

Denied.


text:
    AUDUBON ORTHOPEDIC AND SPORTS MEDICINE, APMC v. LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY Audubon Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, APMC v. Lafayette Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-1153.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Lafayette Insurance Company;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2006-7501; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2009-CA-0007, 2009-CA-0916.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    AUDUBON ORTHOPEDIC AND SPORTS MEDICINE, APMC v. LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY. Audubon Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, APMC v. Lafayette Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-1155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Audubon Orthopedic and Sports Medicine APMC; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2006-7501; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2009-CA-0007, 2009-CA-0916.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Cheryl MARTIN, Individually and O/B/O Her Deceased Mother, Ida Antoine, and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated v. LAFON NURSING FACILITY OF THE HOLY FAMILY, INC.
    No. 2010-C-1359.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Lafon Nursing Facility of the Holy Family Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 06-6370; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-1697.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Antoine JOHNSON.
    No. 2010-KO-0624.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Johnson, Antoine; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 445-233; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-RA-1488.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dale Dwayne CRAIG.
    No. 2010-KP-0734.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Craig, Dale Dwayne; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 9-92-884; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2136.

Denied.


text:
    Eva Dianne Miller ABRAHAM, et al. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-1406.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Terra Mississippi Nitrogen Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calca-sieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2009-1590; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00273.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Exie Winn Arvie ADAMS, et al. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-1407.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Terra Mississippi Nitrogen Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calca-sieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2009-1589; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00167.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Janice Theresa AARON, et al. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-1408.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Terra Mississippi Nitrogen, Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calca-sieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2009-1591; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00309.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leander CHESTER.
    No. 2010-KK-1604.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Chester, Leander; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 803491; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0499.

Denied.


text:
    Barbara RAYMOND v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2010-C-1569.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Transportation and Devel. LA Dept, of; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 75,358-B, 75-873-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. CA 09-1327, CA 09-1328.

Denied.


text:
    Jimmy CLOUD v. Johnny PEART, et al.
    No. 2010-C-1581.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Cloud, Jimmy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 214,192; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-102.

Denied.


text:
    Christine E. NEESE v. Catherine F. ROMERO, The Ultimate Handbag Connection, Inc., The Ultimate Handbag Elite, Inc., Handbags & Accessories Warehouse, L.L.C., CR Manufacturing, Inc., and Designs by C, Inc.
    No. 2010-C-1596.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Romero, Catherine F.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 88,509;. to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 2016.

Denied.


text:
    Kermit RICHARD v. VERMILION HOSPITAL and Louisiana Commerce and Trade Association Self-Insurers’ Fund.
    No. 2010-C-1611.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Louisiana Commerce & Trade Assoc. Self-Insurers’ Fund; Vermilion Hospital et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. — Dist. 04, No. 05-01754; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-385.

Denied.


text:
    Jane DOE v. Scott M. HAWKINS, et al.
    No. 2010-C-1612.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Hawkins & Villemarette L.L.C.;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2008-1156; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1184.

Denied.


text:
    Julie BOUDREAUX, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Byron P. Gautreaux and Kayla Marie Gautreaux, et al. v. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY, et al.
    No. 2010-C-1622.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Boudreaux, Julie et al.; Gau-treaux, Byron P.; Gautreaux, Kayla Marie; Harrison, Karla; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 87,823; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1379.

Denied.


text:
    Chadwick DUKES and Dana Green on Behalf of Skylah Dukes v. Paul J. DECLOUETTE, XYZ Insurance Company and U.S. Agencies Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-1623.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Imperial Fire & Marine Cas. Ins. Co.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 37,080-D; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0045.

Denied.


text:
    Marion TERRANCE v. BATON ROUGE GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER.
    No. 2010-C-1624.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Terrance, Marion; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 559,886; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0011.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    James Jefferson PRICE, IV, et ux. v. ERBE USA, INC., et al.
    No. 2010-C-1628.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Price, et ux. IV, James Jefferson; Price, Jena Broussard; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2003-000319; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 09-1076.

Denied.


text:
    Donnie THOMAS, Sr., Individually and on Behalf of Ronnishia Thomas and Donnishia Williams v. ARDENWOOD PROPERTIES and Scottsdale Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-1629.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Thomas Sr., Donnie et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 535,970; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0026.

Denied.

JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ„ would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Isaac SPARROW & Sabrina Sparrow Green v. Whitney WHEELER, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, C.B. LLC d/b/a Reggie’s & XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-1633.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Sparrow Green, Sabrina; Sparrow, Isaac et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 528,673; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0021.

Denied.


text:
    Sarai TILLINGHAST, Jasmyn Dyer, Janet Reed, Marcinda Williams (On Behalf of Her Son, James Williams) v. STATE of Louisiana, State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and Individual Members of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, and National Association of Charter School Authorizers.
    No. 2010-CC-1635.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Yes! and Master, Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 568,016; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0692.

Denied.


text:
    Susan HAYS v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.
    No. 2010-C-1640.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Hays, Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 527,094; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1386.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Louis BROWN.
    No. 2010-KK-1646.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Brown, Louis; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 498-949; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0597.

Denied.


text:
    Alita RICHARDSON v. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.
    No. 2010-C-1657.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Richardson, Alita; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil Service Department City of New Orleans, No. 7559 & 7606; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0045.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donald J. STELLY.
    No. 2010-CP-1658.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Stelly, Donald; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 42,118-F; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00012.

Denied.


text:
    John DOE, et al. v. JO ELLEN SMITH MEDICAL FOUNDATION, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-1665.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Jo Ellen Smith Medical Center; Jo Ellen Smith Psychiatric Hospital; P.I.A. Westbank, Inc. d/b/a; Tenet Healthcare Corporations; Tenet HealthSystem Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 1997-05365; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0468.

Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant for reasons given by Judge BONIN.


text:
    INDIGO MINERALS, LLC and Martin Timber Company, LLC v. PARDEE MINERALS, LLC, et al.
    No. 2010-C-1669.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Ceniarth Ltd.; El Paso E & P CO. L.P.; Milagro Development I LP; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 40-114; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,160-CA.

Denied.


text:
    INDIGO MINERALS, LLC and Martin Timber Company, LLC v. PARDEE MINERALS, LLC, et al.
    No. 2010-C-1677.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Carnes Oil Company; Carnes Texas Ltd; Carnes, Michael M.; Carnes, Suzanne; deCamara, Richard P.; Pardee Minerals LLC, et al.; Thigpen, James;— Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 40-114; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,160-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Jimmy L. SMITH, Jr. v. Alan C. HAMPSHIRE, et al.
    No. 2010-C-1684.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Smith Jr., Jimmy L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 229,581; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1462.

Denied.


text:
    Gerard P. KINANE v. Archbishop Alfred HUGHES, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-1686.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Kinane, Gerard P.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2005-1612; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0251.

Denied.


text:
    Coretha TAYLOR, Leola S. Richardson, Maeola Brumfield, Ivy Taylor, Audrey Washington, Jerry Taylor, Betty Thomas, Daniel Banks and Irene Laphand v. AMITE HOMES, INC. and Northland Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-CC-1688.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Amite Homes, Inc. et al.; North-land Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 573,380; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0122.

Denied.


text:
    Rickey J. HUVAL, Sr., Iberia Par. Assessor v. JEFFERSON ISLAND STORAGE & HUB, L.L.C.
    No. 2010-CC-1700.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Jefferson Island Storage & HUB L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 114559; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-01213.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. G.D.
    No. 2010-KK-1706.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re D., G.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 07-5085; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW10-00359.

Denied.


text:
    Washington C. DINH, et al. v. LIFECARE HOSPITAL OF NEW ORLEANS, L.L.C., et al.
    No. 2010-CC-1708.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Lifecare Hospital of New Orleans, L.L.C., et ah; Lifecare Management Services, L.L.C.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 09-13178; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0725.

Denied.


text:
    Jesse James CASTON v. James David CALDWELL, et al.
    No. 2010-CP-1720.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Caston, Jesse James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Carroll, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 20,301; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 45,425, 45,279.

Denied.


text:
    Daphne LERAY, Glenn Leray and Elaine Leray v. NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION IN U.S.A., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Jamie Adams, Entergy Louisiana, Inc., and the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development.
    No. 2010-CC-1721.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 8, 2010.
   In re Leray, Daphne et al.; Leray, Elaine; Leray, Glenn; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 80852; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0634.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Henry W. GOLDEN, III.
    No. 2010-KK-2263.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 13, 2010.
   In re Golden III, Henry W.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, Nos. 474-315, 471-494; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1003.

Writ denied. Stay denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bruce YOUNG.
    No. 2010-KK-2301.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 13, 2010.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 494-547; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1417.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant and reinstate trial court’s ruling.

KNOLL, J., would grant to reinstate trial court’s ruling.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Neil LYONS.
    No. 2010-K-2207.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Lyons, Neil; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 496-874; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1093.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    ENVIROSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C. v. LONESTAR CORROSION SERVICES, INC., Tonya Cronin, Glen Cronin, Energy Coatings, Inc. and Richard Sauce.
    No. 2010-CC-1789.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Cronin, Glen; Energy Coatings Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 87,078; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0614.

Writ granted. Case remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument, and full opinion. Motion to seal denied. Respondent shall be granted ten days from the date of this order to retrieve the documents attached to the motion. Supreme Court Rule V, Section 5.


text:
    ENVIROSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C. v. LONESTAR CORROSION SERVICES, INC., Tonya Cronin, Glen Cronin, Energy Coatings, Inc. and Richard Sauce.
    No. 2010-CC-1935.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Enviroshield Technologies, L.L.C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 87,073; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0614.

Writ granted. Case remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument, and full opinion. Motion to seal denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Jones, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 95550; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-00867.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. If it has not done so already, the district court is ordered to supply relator with a copy of the transcript of the post-conviction evidentiary hearing held on March 16, 2009. State ex rel. Simmons v. State, 93-0275 (La.12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094. Upon receipt of the transcript of the hearing, relator may seek substantive review of his underlying claims in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. In all other respects, the application is denied. State ex rel. Ber nard v. Cr.D.C., 94-2247, p. 1 (La.4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, 1175.


text:
    In re Robert V. GEORGE.
    No. 2010-OB-2119.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re George, Robert V.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Admission.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence BRIGGS.
    No. 2010-KK-1806.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 491-978; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0620.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See S.Ct. Rule X, section 5(a).


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell DURAND.
    No. 2009-KP-2238.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Durand, Darrell; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 05-5118; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-467.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry A. BROYARD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KP-2255.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Broyard, Larry A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 277-289.

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. Dwight PATTERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2306.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Patterson, Dwight; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 433,891; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1125.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Nolan GRANT, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2310.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Grant Jr., Nolan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 85-3099; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-896.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Desiree MORRISON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2336.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Morrison, Desiree; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 06-1153; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-670.

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. Percy M. TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2383.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Taylor, Percy M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 88^4180; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-WR-984, 08-KH-699, 08-KH-721, 08-KH-759.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terry HARTMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2386.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Hartman, Terry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 231587; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0999.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Keith STEWART v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2387.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Stewart, Keith; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 80-2360.

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. Thomas GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2389.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Green, Thomas; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 176843; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0768.

Denied. 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. Hercules SMALL, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2390.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Small Jr., Hercules; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 258, 278, 258, 270; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-00814.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; 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. Gregory CUMMINGS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2391.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Cummings, Gregory; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 06-5475; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-456.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cedric DENT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2392.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Dent, Cedric; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 393-154; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1190.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2394.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Jones, Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 06-4678; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-450.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    Alvin HARVEY v. James LeBLANC, Secretary of Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al.
    No. 2009-CI-2398.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Harvey, Alvin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 565057; to the Court of Appeal/ First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0498.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Shannon ZENO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2431.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Zeno, Shannon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 98-1190; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-849.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Percy M. TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2475.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Taylor, Percy M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, Nos. 88-4180, 88-4351, 95-4675, 02-1290; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-WR-984, 08-KH-699, 08-KH-721, 08-KH-759.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Percy M. TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2786.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Taylor, Percy M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 88^180; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-884.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Everett SICKS.
    No. 2010-K-0497.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Sicks, Everett; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, Slidell City Court, No. 08KS2680; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2204.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael Desmond CRAFT.
    No. 2010-KP-0765.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Craft, Michael Desmond; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 428,613/4; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0154.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. George WEBER.
    No. 2010-KP-0818.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Weber, George; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 354-988; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0173.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David MATHIS.
    No. 2010-KK-1335.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Mathis, David; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. W-04-3-77; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0389.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Billy Glenn WRIGHT, Sr.
    No. 2010-KK-1437.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 278,034; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45719-KW.

Denied.

VICTORY, KNOLL and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Larry MARTIN v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a, a/k/a Riverwood International Paper Mill and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., d/b/a Burns International Security Services Corporation.
    No. 2010-CC-1457.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Burns International Security Services Corporation; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. d/b/a; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 517,367; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0539.

Denied.

WEIMER and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    ENVIROSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, L.L.C. v. LONESTAR CORROSION SERVICES, INC., Tonya Cronin, Glen Cronin, Energy Coatings, Inc. and Richard Sauce.
    No. 2010-CC-1740.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Lonestar Corrosion Services Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 87,073; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0515.

Denied.


text:
    CAMBRIE CELESTE, LLC, et al. v. Dale ATKINS, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-1764.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Cambrie Celeste, LLC et al.; Religious Q2, LLC; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 2010-2285; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0762.

Denied.


text:
    Wanda CELESTINE v. The PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY and/or The Parish of St. Tammany through the Department of Planning, Division of Code Emforcement and Balboa Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-CC-1776.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re St. Tammany Parish of; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2008-16533; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0674.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gerard SENEGAR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2035.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Senegar, Gerard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 10-237788; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KM 10-00852.

Denied.


text:
    PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA, INC., and Pioneer Natural Resources Company v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2304.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Certain London & Domestic Ins. Co. Subsc. to Policy No. CR-5591 & EJLPN0205; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London et al.; XL Specialty Insurance Company (Though XL Marine & Offshore Energy); — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 558-017; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 CW 1779, 2010 CW 1778.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    Patricia BOURQUE v. ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2296.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 15, 2010.
   In re Donald Lack Construction Inc. et al.; Essex Insurance Co.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2003-004898; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01162.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Herbert NICHOLSON.
    No. 2010-KK-2343.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 18, 2010.
   In re Nicholson, Herbert; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 479-690; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1430.

Denied.


author: PAINTER, Judge.

text:
    Timothy COTONE v. CORROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS, et al.
    No. 10-201.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Oct. 6, 2010.
    Kevin Duck, Attorney at Law, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee Timothy Cotone.
    E. Phelps Gay, Attorney at Law, New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Ap-pellee Maxum Industries, LLC.
    Scott A. Soule, Attorney at Law, New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Ap-pellee American Longshore Mutual Assn.
    Thomas J. Wagner, Attorney at Law, New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Corrosion Control Systems, LLC.
    Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, J. DAVID PAINTER, and DAVID E. CHATELAIN, Judges.

       Honorable David E. Chatelain participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

   PAINTER, Judge.

11 Corrosion Control Systems, Inc. (Corrosion) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of one of its co-defendants, Maxum Industries, LLC (Maxum), in this personal injury case. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Timothy Cotone (Cotone), was employed as a shipyard supervisor by Superior Derrick Services (Superior). Superior was hired by Nabors Offshore Corporation (Nabors) to convert Barge RIG 100, an inland barge, into a drilling rig. Corrosion was hired to perform sandblasting and painting services. Maxum supplied temporary workers to Superior for the performance of welding and fitting services.

Cotone alleges that he was injured on November 3, 2006, when he stepped into an open hole on the barge owned by Na-bors. Cotone initially filed suit against only Corrosion, alleging that a Corrosion employee removed the safety cables used to protect and secure the hole and covered the deck, including the hole, with a plastic covering. By first supplemental and amending petition, Maxum, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Louisiana, Evanston Insurance Company (Evanston), and XL Specialty Insurance Company (XL Specialty) were added as defendants. In this petition, Cotone alleged that either a Corrosion or Maxum employee removed the safety cables. Evanston and XL Specialty were voluntarily dismissed by Co-tone.

Maxum filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that there was an absence of evidence that any employee of Maxum contributed to Cotone’s injury. Cotone did not oppose the motion. Corrosion opposed the motion and asserted that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Maxum’s actions at and around the hole in question.

The trial court granted Maxum’s motion, specifically finding that there was “no evidence from which [it] or any trier of fact could conclude that a Maxum employee either removed the safety cables, or placed the plastic over the hole.” Accordingly, the trial court dismissed Cotone’s claims against Maxum with prejudice and designated the judgment as final and appealable pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915.

[ ^Corrosion now appeals that judgment, asserting that the trial court lacked the undisputed factual foundation necessary for its grant of summary judgment. Co-tone does not appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Maxum.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(B) states that a summary judgment shall be rendered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” If the party moving for summary judgment will not bear the burden of proof at trial, it need merely point out that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(C)(2). Whether a particular fact in dispute is material can only be determined in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. Foreman v. Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, Inc., 97-2038 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/25/98), 722 So.2d 1, writ denied, 98-2703 (La.12/18/98), 734 So.2d 637.

It is well settled that appellate courts must use the de novo standard of review to review a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment under the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether a summary judgment is appropriate in any given case. Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, 99-2257 (La.2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226.

Cotone asserts a claim of negligence against Maxum. Thus, the duty-risk analysis is employed, and Cotone must prove five separate elements: (1) whether the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard; (2) whether the defendant’s conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard; (3) whether the defendant’s substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiffs injuries; (4) whether the defendant’s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiffs injuries; and (5) whether the plaintiff was damaged. Cusimano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 04-0248 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/11/05), 906 So.2d 484.

l-jCotone’s deposition was introduced in support of Maxum’s motion for summary judgment. Maxum specifically points to Cotone’s testimony that he was the last person to leave the barge on the evening before his accident and that, at the time he left, the safety barricades were in place and that there was no plastic sheeting obscuring the manhole in question. He further testified that he and his crew worked days while the Corrosion painting crews worked nights.

In response to discovery propounded by Cotone, Maxum produced an invoice submitted to Superior, which included a list of employees working at Superior’s yard for the period beginning October 30, 2006, and ending November 5, 2006. Based on these records and the testimony of Maxum representatives, the trial court found that the majority of welders and fitters supplied by Maxum worked in other areas of Superi- or’s yard and not on the barge.

Rigoberto Cornejo Garcia’s deposition was submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment. Garcia was employed by Maxum as a welder. Garcia testified that every single manhole had a barricade set up around it. Garcia further testified that while he had to pass through the manholes to go beneath the barge deck to do his work, he never removed the barricades or the wires to get down below the deck. He also testified that he left at five o’clock every day. Garcia also testified that Guadeloupe Robles, Desantos, and Isidro De La Cruz were other Maxum employees who worked on the barge where Cotone’s accident occurred.

Brennan Segura’s deposition was also submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment. Segura was a project manager for Maxum at the time of the subject accident. He testified that he was responsible for recruiting welders and fitters and placing them at the job site. He further testified as to the identity of Max-um workers present at the job site during the dates at issue, including Garcia and Porfirio Diaz.

Diaz, who was a translator for the Max-um employees, was also deposed. Diaz testified that he never saw any holes without barricades and that Maxum employees would climb between or over the cable wires to go down in a manhole. He also | testified that, on the day before the accident, he did not recall seeing any plastic sheeting on or around the barge.

Glenn Russo’s deposition was also taken. Russo was employed by Corrosion as a manager at the time of the accident. Russo testified that his foreman, Jamie Lopez, confirmed that it was Lopez’s crew that put the plastic sheeting over the manhole.

Maxum’s evidence need not dispose of the issue of who removed the safety barricades or placed the plastic sheeting over the manhole. No evidence was submitted to the trial court which could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that a Maxum employee either removed the cables from the barrier or place the plastic sheeting over the hole. We agree with the trial court that Corrosion failed to present any evidence that Maxum was responsible for Cotone’s injuries. Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of Maxum is affirmed.

DECREE

The trial court’s summary judgment dismissing Cotone’s claims against Maxum is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Defendant-Appellant, Corrosion.

AFFIRMED.