author: CLARK, Justice. JOHNSON, J., WEIMER, J., GUIDRY, J.,

text:
    INTERDICTION OF Harold Otis WRIGHT.
    No. 2010-CC-1826.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 25, 2011.

      The Willeford Law Firm, James Frederick Willeford, Reagan Levert Toledano, Jessica Michelle Vasquez, New Orleans, LA, for Applicant.
    Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, LLP, Tom Samuel Easterly, Edward Daniel Hughes, Baton Rouge, LA, for Respondent.
   CLARK, Justice.

_JjWe granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s exception of res judicata. For the reasons that follow, we find an unconfirmed arbitration award does not have a preclusive effect. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal’s ruling and remand the matter to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this holding.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Harold Otis Wright was paralyzed and incapacitated by a medical accident in 1973. He received damages totaling approximately $1.7 million as a result of ensuing litigation. Wright v. United States, 507 F.Supp. 147 (E.D.La.1981). Thereafter, his wife, Audrey Wright, filed a Petition for Interdiction in the 21st Judicial District Court. The court declared Mr. Wright an interdict and appointed Mrs. Wright as his euratrix. In conjunction with the interdiction proceeding, the court issued an order (“the 1982 order”) which allowed the euratrix to invest the money from the judgment in long-term bonds. Additionally, the court ordered all interest income be deposited and channeled through a Custodian Account, with the provision “that no portion of the interdict’s capital estate be withdrawn from any of the said long range investment accounts, without further and specific orders of this court.” With permission of the court, Mrs. Wright established an account with A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. (“A.G. | ¡.Edwards”) through one of its investment bankers, Edwin Reardon. Both Mr. Reardon and A.G. Edwards received a certified copy of the court’s order which authorized disbursement.

On December 23, 2002, Mrs. Wright filed a Petition for Damages in the 21st Judicial District Court against several defendants, including Mr. Reardon and A.G. Edwards, alleging breach of fiduciary and contractual duties, including violations of securities law. Particularly, Mrs. Wright argued Mr. Reardon misappropriated the entire $1.7 million and disbursed the principal from the account, thereby violating the court’s 1982 order. Additionally, Mrs. Wright alleged further violation of the court’s order when Mr. Reardon left A.G. Edwards, went to work for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc. (“Morgan Stanley”), and took the remaining principal of the account ($700,000) with him to Morgan Stanley. Also, she contended A.G. Edwards failed to supervise Mr. Reardon’s management of the account.

In response to the defendants’ Exception of Prematurity and in light of the arbitration clause in the account agreement, the court issued an order, staying the action pending arbitration before the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”). Mrs. Wright consented to the arbitration. While the arbitration was still pending, Mr. Wright died, thereby terminating the interdiction proceeding. Harold Asher was appointed as the decedent’s succession representative and was substituted for Mrs. Wright in the arbitration. On July 31, 2006, the NASD arbitration panel issued a $150,000 award in favor of the succession against A.G. Edwards.

On June 18, 2008, Mr. Asher filed a Motion for Contempt of Court against |SA.G. Edwards under La.Code Civ.P. art. 3611 for violating the 1982 court order. A.G. Edwards filed several exceptions, including an exception of res judicata, wherein it contended the NASD arbitration proceeding was between the same parties, based on the same alleged wrongful conduct, and awarded the same damages sought in the Motion for Contempt of Court. The trial court denied the exception of res judicata. On July 21, 2010, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal granted the writ, reversing the trial court’s ruling and dismissing Mr. Asher’s claims as res judicata. Interdiction of Harold Wright, 10-449 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/22/10). Particularly, the court of appeal stated:

The trial court erred in denying A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc.’s Exception of Res Judicata. The arbitration proceeding was between the same parties, based on the same alleged wrongful conduct, and awarded the same damages sought in Harold Asher’s Motion for Contempt (which we find to be a misnamed petition for damages, given that there was no injunction issued). Therefore, the arbitration award, albeit unconfirmed, is res judicata and precludes Mr. Asher’s suit. See Aucoin v. Gauthier [35 So.3d 326], 2010 WL 502793 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/12/10), writ granted, (La.6/18/10) 38 So.3d 312. Accordingly, the exception is hereby granted, dismissing the claims of Harold Asher against A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc.

This court granted Mr. Asher’s writ application for certiorari to determine whether an arbitration award that is not confirmed in accordance with La. R.S. 9:4209 can have a preclusive effect on subsequent proceedings that involve the same parties, [4are based on the same wrongful conduct, and seek the same damages. Assuming an unconfirmed award does have a preclu-sive effect, we then must determine whether Mr. Asher’s Motion for Contempt of Court involves the same parties, wrongful conduct, and damages as the Petition for Damages, which was the basis for the arbitration award. Interdiction of Harold Otis Wright, 10-1826 (La.11/12/10), 49 So.3d 875.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Asher contends the unconfirmed arbitration award in this case cannot have a res judicata effect because it is not a judgment by a court vested with judicial power. On the other hand, A.G. Edwards argues the arbitration award, though unconfirmed, has a preclusive effect and bars the plaintiffs suit because the award was between the same parties, based on the same conduct, and awarded the same damages as the instant litigation. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Mr. Asher’s assertion that res judicata does not apply to an unconfirmed arbitration award.

Louisiana’s res judicata statute is codified in La. R.S. 13:4231:

Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:
(1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment.
(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.
|fi(3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent action between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that judgment. (Emphasis added).

The statute applies only when there is a “valid and final judgment” between the parties. Comment (d) to the statute further explains the requirement of a “valid and final judgment”:

To have any preclusive effect a judgment must be valid, that is, it must have been rendered by a court with jurisdiction over subject matter and over parties, and proper notice must have been given.... The use of the phrase “final judgment” also means that the preclu-sive effect of a judgment attaches once a final judgment has been signed by the trial court. (Emphasis added).

As supported by the language of the comment, an unconfirmed arbitration award is not a “judgment” and was not “rendered by a court.” As such, it does not qualify as a “valid and final judgment” under the statute and has no res judicata effect.

To illustrate the distinction between an “arbitration award” and a “judgment,” we look to the language of the Louisiana Binding Arbitration Law, La. R.S. 9:4209, which provides, in pertinent part: “at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court ... for an order confirming the award.” (emphasis added). Pursuant to La. R.S. 9:4210, a court is required to vacate an award if certain enumerated events occur. Similarly, under La. R.S. 9:4211 |fia court can modify or correct an arbitration award for reasons listed in the statute. Because awards are subject to court-ordered vacation or modification, arbitration awards are clearly not “valid and final judgments” unless and until they have been confirmed.

La. R.S. 9:4212 even contrasts the two terms: “Upon the granting of an order confirming, modifying, or correcting an award, judgment may be entered in conformity therewith in the court wherein the order was granted.” (emphasis added). La. R.S. 9:4214 provides the procedure for converting the award to a judgment and states, “[t]he judgment so entered shall have the same force and effect ... as a judgment in an action, and it may be enforced as if it had been rendered in an action in the court in which it is entered.” Indeed, if the legislature intended unconfirmed awards to have preclusive effects, there would be no reason to include a procedure for confirming awards. By enacting La. R.S. 9:4209, et seq., the legislature intended for parties to seek judicial confirmation before an arbitration award would become a legally enforceable judgment.

| 7We recently confirmed this interpretation by way of jurisprudence in FIA Card Services, NA v. Weaver, 10-1372, p. 5 (La.3/15/11), 62 So.3d 709, 712 when we held “[f]or an arbitral award to be made enforceable by law, it must first be confirmed by a court.” In that case, we rejected the argument that the failure to timely file a motion to vacate an award necessitates a court’s confirmation of the order as a purely ministerial act. Rather, we held a court is obligated to first satisfy itself that a, valid arbitration agreement was in existence. This holding stands for the proposition that a court’s confirmation of an award is more than a rubber-stamping task. Thus, a judgment is required in order to give an arbitration award legal effect. See also McCarty v. Zacharie, 11 La. Ann. 474 (1856), wherein the court held the parties were not bound by the arbitration award because it was never confirmed.

Moreover, the applicability of the res judicata statute presupposes the judgment was rendered by a court with constitutional authority. The Louisiana Constitution of 1974 vests judicial authority solely in the hands of the “supreme court, courts of appeal, district courts, and other courts authorized by this Article.” La. Const. Art. V, § 1. The power to issue legally binding judgments cannot be delegated to non-judicial personnel. See State v. O’Reilly, 00-2684 (La.5/15/01), 785 So.2d 768 (striking down a statute which delegated judicial power to unelected commissioners). Our Constitution mandates independent judicial review before an arbitrator's award can serve as the ground for a judgment. If an arbitration award is afforded immediate res judicata effect, the arbitrator is essentially acting as an Article V tribunal insofar as his award will have the immediate effect of a judgment. As mentioned above, the law prohibits this type of unauthorized exercise of power.

In Wooley v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., 04-882, p. 36 (La.1/19/05), 893 So.2d 746, 771, this court held that an order of an administrative law | ¿judge is “not a valid and final judgment for purposes of res judicata.” We also held that the “valid and final judgment” requirement of the res judicata statute assumes “that the judgment at issue was one wherein judicial power was exercised by an Article V tribunal.” Id. By analogy, if the ruling of an administrative law judge, who is appointed by the executive branch, is not a “final and valid” judgment, neither is the decision of an arbitrator.

Because we held that an unconfirmed arbitration award does not have a preclu-sive effect, it is unnecessary for us to address whether the Motion for Contempt of Court sought the same relief as the Petition for Damages. Thus, we pretermit discussion of this issue.

DECREE

For the reasons stated herein, the ruling of the court of appeal is reversed and the trial court ruling that denied the exception of res judicata is reinstated. The matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

JOHNSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

WEIMER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part for reasons assigned.

GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

JOHNSON, J.,

dissents and assigns reasons.

11 This case has had a long and tortuous history. It began in April 1973 when Harold Wright, complaining of having a sore throat, visited his physician, who diagnosed the cause as tonsillitis or strep throat. Mr. Wright suffered an allergic reaction to the penicillin prescribed, and eventually became a spastic quadriplegic, suffering total and permanent disability. In the resulting litigation, he received a judgment of approximately $1.7 million.

In the Petition for Interdiction which was filed in the 21st Judicial District Court, the court declared Mr. Wright an interdict, and appointed his wife, Audrey Wright, as his curatrix. The court allowed Mrs. Wright to invest the proceeds from the $1.7 million with A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. (“A.G. Edwards”) through one of its investment bankers, Edwin Reardon. Ultimately, Mrs. Wright filed a Petition for Damages against Edwin Reardon, A.G. Edwards, and several other defendants including Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, alleging breach of fiduciary and contractual duties, including violations of federal and state securities law.

What is important to note for purposes of resolving this issue, is that the district court issued an order on September 25, 2003, staying the action against defendants, pending arbitration before the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. 1 j>(“NASD”). Mrs. Wright in fact signed the NASD Arbitration Uniform Submission Agreement, consenting to arbitration.

On July 26, 2005, Harold Wright died, which terminated the interdiction proceeding. Shortly thereafter, Harold Asher (“Asher”) was appointed as the succession representative. Asher entered into a Stipulated Judgment in the underlying litigation, which dismissed Edwin Reardon, who admitted to mismanaging the Interdict’s funds. On July 31, 2006, the NASD arbitration panel held that A.G. Edwards was liable for compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000, which was paid by A.G. Edwards and accepted by Asher. The First Circuit Court of Appeal, in Interdiction of Harold Wright, 10-449 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/22/10), reversed the district court and dismissed Asher’s remaining claims against A.G. Edwards as res judica-ta, stating:

The trial court erred in denying A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc.’s Exception of Res Judicata. The arbitration proceeding was between the same parties, based on the same alleged wrongful conduct, and awarded the same damages sought in Harold Asher’s Motion for Contempt (which we find to be a misnamed petition for damages, given that there was no injunction issue). Therefore, the arbitration award, albeit unconfirmed, is res judicata and precludes Mr. Asher’s suit. See Aucoin v. Gauthier [35 So.3d 326], 2010 WL 502793 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/12/10), writ granted, (La.6/18/10), [38] So.2d [312]. [sic] Accordingly, the exception is hereby granted, dismissing the claims of Harold Asher against A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc.

I agree with the court of appeal.

LSA-R.S. 9:4209 allows, but does not require, confirmation of an arbitration award. The statute provides “any party may apply to the court” to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. The term “may” is permissive, not mandatory. Had the legislature intended to make it mandatory to confirm an arbitration award before it could be given preclusive effect, it would have used the term “shall” instead of “may.”

lain the case sub judice, neither party filed a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award within the prescribed time limits. Since both Mrs. Wright, as curatrix, and A.G. Edwards agreed contractually to arbitrate their dispute, and agreed to be bound by the arbitration award, the arbitration is final and binding on the parties.

Louisiana’s doctrine of res judicata, as defined by LSA-R.S. 13:4281, is intended to increase judicial efficiency, and to protect the defendants against the unnecessary burdens of litigation arising from repeated lawsuits. Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 1995-0671 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 624. Under “issue preclusion”, resolution of an issue of fact or law essential to determination of the dispute precludes re-litigation of the same issue in a different action between the same parties. In my view, an unconfirmed arbitration award may have preclu-sive effect in a subsequent proceeding involving the same parties, based on the same wrongful conduct, and seeking the same damages, especially where, as here, the petitioner has accepted payment of the monies awarded in the arbitration process, thereby acquiescing in the award.

WEIMER, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

| ,This case involves two issues: (1) whether the arbitration award at issue in this case, which was not confirmed in accordance with La. R.S. 9:4209, can have preclusive effect in a subsequent proceeding; and (2) whether that unconfirmed arbitration award is entitled to preclusive effect as to a subsequent petition for damages and/or a motion for contempt.

As to the first issue, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the award at issue cannot be accorded preclusive effect. There are two facts that I find to be dispositive in this regard. First, the matter was submitted to arbitration because the parties entered into a “Uniform Submission Agreement,” in which they agreed to be bound by the decision of the arbitrators. This submission or contractual agreement to be bound by the decision of the arbitrators, is effectively a compromise, or “a contract whereby the parties, through concessions made by one or more of them, settle a dispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation or other legal relationship.” La. C.C. art. 3071. A compromise is entitled to preclu-sive effect in a subsequent action between the same parties. La. C.C. art. 3080 (“A compromise precludes the | parties from bringing a subsequent action based upon the matter that was compromised.”).

Second, following the decision of the arbitrators, the defendant tendered, and the plaintiff accepted, the $150,000 awarded in the arbitration proceeding. Under the law, confirmation of an arbitration award is not mandatory; rather, confirmation is necessary only for purposes of execution. La. C.C. art. 3129 (“The award in order to be put in execution, ought to be approved by the judge; but this formality is only intended to invest the award with a sufficient authority to ensure its execution ...”). In this case, because the plaintiff accepted the proceeds of the award, there was no reason for a confirmation proceeding. The plaintiff, by agreeing to the arbitration and accepting the benefits of same, effectively compromised the claim, and that compromise can, and should be, accorded preclusive effect in this proceeding.

While I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the arbitration award cannot have preclusive effect with respect to the petition for damages filed in district court, I do agree that the award does not have preclusive effect as to the separate motion for contempt.

A contempt proceeding is not directly designed for the benefit of one or more of the litigants; rather, its object and purpose is to vindicate the authority and maintain the dignity of the court itself. Billiot v. Billiot, 01-1298, pp. 8-9 (La.1/25/02), 805 So.2d 1170, 1176, citing State ex rel. Duffy & Behan v. Civil Dist. Ct. for Parish of Orleans, 112 La. 182, 36 So. 315 (1904). Therefore, I do not believe the parties, by arbitration, can deprive a court of its authority to enforce its own orders and to punish for the violation thereof through contempt proceedings. The violation of a court order is a matter between the court and the party in violation |sof that order. It is not a matter between the parties and, thus, not a matter that falls under the agreement to arbitrate.

With the foregoing being said, while I believe the motion for contempt remains viable in this case, I also believe the district court is limited to the remedies afforded in La. R.S. 13:4611 in punishing that contempt. The order issued by the district court was not an injunction; therefore, the penalties imposed under La. C.C.P. art. 3611 are not available.

GUIDRY, J.,

dissents with reasons.

liThe parties agreed to arbitration, the matter was submitted to arbitration, and a $150,000 award was issued in favor of the succession and against A.G. Edwards. The arbitrator’s decision was honored by the parties and the amount awarded was tendered by A.G. Edwards and accepted by the succession. The issues resolved through arbitration and accepted by the succession were final between the parties.

The requirement of confirmation is necessary only for the purposes of execution of the judgment. La. C.C. art. 3129. This requirement is primarily intended to protect the creditor and is not necessary for the decision to have preclusive effect between the parties, especially here where there are no grounds alleged to vacate the award. The Motion for Contempt clearly involves the same parties and conduct and seeks the same damages.

Therefore, I believe that the award does have preclusive effect between the parties. In any event, on remand, when A.G. Edwards’ other exceptions are considered, the unconfirmed arbitration award will support the dismissal of the plaintiffs petition.

      . A.G. Edwards is the only defendant involved in the instant matter. Morgan Stanley was dismissed with prejudice and Mr. Reardon entered into a stipulated judgment for the amount of $100,000.

      . Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 3611 provides:
      Disobedience of or resistance to a temporary restraining order or preliminary or final injunction is punishable as a contempt of court. The court may cause to be undone or destroyed whatever may be done in violation of an injunction, and the person aggrieved thereby may recover the damages sustained as a result of the violation.

      .Mr. Asher previously filed a Motion for Contempt of Court while arbitration was pending. A.G. Edwards removed the matter to federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court, where the order was initially issued. The federal district court denied the motion to remand; however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the matter to the 21st Judicial District Court. Thereafter, Mr. Asher re-urged the Motion for Contempt of Court, which is relevant to the instant litigation.

      . La. R.S. 9:4209 provides, in pertinent part: "[a]t any time within one year after the arbitration award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court ... for an order confirming the award and thereupon the court shall grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.”

      . La. R.S. 9:4210 provides:
      In any of the following cases the court in and for the parish wherein the award was made shall issue an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration.
      A. Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
      B. Where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators or any of them.
      C. Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
      D. Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

      . La. R.S. 9:4211 provides:
      In any of the following cases the court in and for the parish wherein the award was made shall issue an order modifying or correcting the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration.
      A. Where there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award.
      B. Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision upon the matters submitted.
      C. Where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy.
      The order shall modify and correct the award so as to effect the intent thereof and promote justice between the parties.

      . A submission is defined by La. C.C. art. 3099 as "a covenant by which persons who have a lawsuit or difference with one another, name arbitrators to decide the matter and bind themselves reciprocally to perform what shall be arbitrated.” A submission, therefore, has all the characteristics of a compromise.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Leslie E. DAVIS.
    No. 2011-OB-2561.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 1, 2011.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.

|! After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Leslie E. Davis, is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a probationary period of five years. The probationary period shall commence from the date petitioner, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. During the probationary period, petitioner shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the consent agreement executed by her with the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, and such other conditions as may be imposed upon her by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should she commit any misconduct during the period of probation, her conditional right to practice may be terminated or she may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re Donald Ray SMITH.
    No. 2011-B-2007.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 2, 2011.
    See also, 17 So.3d 927.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

| ¶ This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Donald Ray Smith, a disbarred attorney.

PRIOR DISCIPLINARY HISTORY

Before we address the current charges, we find it helpful to review respondent’s prior disciplinary history. Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana in 1997. On February 4, 2009, respondent was placed on interim suspension for threat of harm to the public. In re: Smith, 09-0183 (La.2/4/09), 999 So.2d 1130. Thereafter, he was disbarred, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension, for multiple counts of misconduct which occurred between 2004 and 2007, including practicing law while ineligible to do so, failing to pay third-party medical providers, neglecting legal matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to fulfill his obligations upon terminating the representation of his clients, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with the ODC. In re: Smith, 09-1141 (La.9/25/09), 17 So.3d 927 (“Smith I”).

Against this backdrop, we now turn to a consideration of the misconduct at issue in the present proceeding.

| .FORMAL CHARGES

Effective September 7, 2004, respondent was declared ineligible to practice law for failure to pay his bar dues and the disciplinary assessment. Nevertheless, respondent continued to practice law after his certification of ineligibility. In March 2008, his elderly aunt, Christine Sims, a resident of Mississippi, was struck by an unlicensed and uninsured motorist in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Jackson, Mississippi. Respondent offered to assist Ms. Sims with her claim by contacting Wal-Mart. Respondent later informed Ms. Sims that he was working with her insurance company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), to resolve the matter. In April 2008, respondent sent a letter of representation to State Farm. He subsequently notified State Farm that he was authorized to settle Ms. Sims’ claim for $30,000. However, respondent had neither a fee agreement nor a contract with Ms. Sims.

In July 2008, State Farm issued a $10,000 settlement check payable to Ms. Sims and respondent. Without Ms. Sims’ knowledge or consent, respondent endorsed and cashed the check. Thereafter, respondent retained the proceeds for his own use and benefit. Ms. Sims heard nothing further from respondent and received no portion of the settlement proceeds.

In March 2009, Ms. Sims filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Respondent failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation of the complaint.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In September 2010, the ODC filed one count of formal charges against respondent, alleging his conduct as set forth above violated Rules 1.2(a) (scope of lathe representation), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.15(a) (safekeeping property of clients or third persons), 1.15(d) (failure to promptly deliver funds owed to a client or third person), 5.5(a) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation), 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct), 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(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

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

Hearing Committee Report

After considering the ODC’s deemed admitted submission, the hearing committee adopted the deemed admitted factual allegations of the formal charges as its factual findings. Based on those facts, the committee determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged.

The committee further determined respondent violated duties owed to his client, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. Respondent caused damage to his client by depriving her of funds to which she was entitled. According to the committee, respondent’s dishonesty is the type of conduct that erodes the public’s trust and confidence in the legal profession and the legal system. After considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the committee determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.

|4In aggravation, the committee found prior disciplinary offenses and a dishonest or selfish motive. The committee found no mitigating factors present.

After considering respondent’s conduct in light of the prior jurisprudence of this court and the lack of mitigating factors, the committee recommended respondent be disbarred. The committee also recommended that respondent be ordered to pay to Ms. Sims all sums collected by him on her behalf, or that are attributable to her claim, and pay the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report and recommendation. However, in its brief to the disciplinary board, the ODC argued respondent deserves no leniency and should be permanently disbarred.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

After review, the disciplinary board determined the factual allegations of the formal charges were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence. Based on the deemed admitted facts, the board determined respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the formal charges.

The board further determined respondent violated duties owed to his client, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. He acted knowingly and intentionally, and his misconduct resulted in actual harm. Based on the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the board determined the baseline sanction is disbarment.

In aggravation, the board found the following factors are present: prior disciplinary offenses, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceedings by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary agency, vulnerability of the victim, ^substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1997), and indifference to making restitution. The board found no mitigating factors present.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board found that respondent’s conduct warrants permanent disbarment. In Smith I, respondent was disbarred for a total of seven counts of misconduct, including multiple counts of conversion. In the present formal charges, respondent converted Ms. Sims’ settlement funds and intentionally concealed from her the status of her case and his ineligibility to practice law. While the facts of this case do not fit squarely within the permanent disbarment guidelines set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, Appendix E, considering the clear pattern of respondent’s misconduct which evolved over a period of several years, the board recommended he be permanently disbarred. The board also recommended respondent be ordered to make restitution of the converted settlement funds to Ms. Sims or to the Client Assistance Fund, as appropriate, and pay the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

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. Y, § 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.

|fiIn cases in which the lawyer does not - answer the formal charges, the factual allegations of those charges are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3). Thus, the ODC bears no additional burden to prove the factual allegations contained in the formal charges after those charges have been deemed admitted. However, the language of § 11(E)(3) does not encompass legal conclusions that flow from the factual allegations. If the legal conclusion the ODC seeks to prove (i.e., a violation of a specific rule) is not readily apparent from the deemed admitted facts, additional evidence may need to be submitted in order to prove the legal conclusions that flow from the admitted factual allegations. In re: Donnan, 01-3058 (La.1/10/03), 838 So.2d 715.

The record in this deemed admitted matter supports a finding that respondent practiced law while ineligible to do so, settled his client’s claim without her knowledge or consent, converted the settlement funds to his own use, and failed to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation. Based on these facts, respondent has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as charged by the ODC.

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).

Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his client, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession. His misconduct caused significant actual harm. The baseline sanction for this type of misconduct is 17disbarment. However, in its report, the disciplinary board concluded that respondent’s offenses are so egregious that he should be permanently prohibited from applying for readmission to the bar.

We agree. While we do not, strictly speaking, consider the misconduct in this case together with the misconduct at issue in Smith I, the earlier misconduct is relevant for purposes of assessing respondent’s fitness to practice law. We note that he has victimized both clients and third parties in the past, and it is highly likely he will continue to do so in the future if given an opportunity. His conduct demonstrates a lack of regard for his clients and for his duties as an attorney. In order to protect the public and maintain the high standards of the legal profession in this state, we conclude respondent should not be allowed the opportunity to return to the practice of law in the future.

Accordingly, we will adopt the board’s recommendation and permanently disbar respondent. We will also order respondent to make restitution to Ms. Sims, or to the bar association’s Client Assistance Fund, as applicable.

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 Donald Ray Smith, Louisiana Bar Roll number 24881, 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. Respondent is ordered to make restitution to Christine Sims, or to the | ¡¡Louisiana State Bar Association’s Client Assistance Fund, as applicable. 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.

      . In addition to the fact that he was ineligible to practice law in Louisiana at this time, the record reveals that respondent was not licensed to practice law in Mississippi, where Ms. Sims resided and where her accident occurred.

      . The board correctly determined that Guideline 1 does not apply, because the current complaint involves a single conversion of funds from a single client, not the "repeated or multiple instances” of conversion of client funds contemplated by Guideline 1. Likewise, the board was correct in its determination that Guideline 9 (serious attorney misconduct or conviction of a serious crime preceded by suspension or disbarment for prior instances of serious attorney misconduct or conviction of a serious crime) does not apply because respondent’s misconduct in this case occurred prior to his 2009 disbarment in Smith I.

      . In Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Chatelain, 573 So.2d 470 (La.1991), we observed that when a second attorney disciplinary proceeding involves conduct which occurred during the same time period as the first proceeding, the overall discipline to be imposed should be determined as if both proceedings were before the court simultaneously. However, the Chatelain approach is not applicable in this case, as the instant misconduct occurred after the misconduct in Smith I.


text:
    In re Skipper M. DROST.
    No. 2011-B-2188.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 2, 2011.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

hThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent entered into an improper business transaction with a client and notarized a will which was not signed by the testator in his presence. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent has violated Rules 1.1(a) (failure to provide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.8(a) (entering into a business transaction with a client), and 8.4(c) (engaging in 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 Skipper M. Drost, Louisiana Bar Roll number 5084, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for two years, with all but ninety days deferred, followed by a two-year period of supervised probation governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent, the ODC, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be | ¡^grounds for making the deferred portion of the suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

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:
    In re Przemek LUBECKI.
    No. 2011-OB-2442.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 2, 2011.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.

|, After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Przemek Lubecki, is eligible to be admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana.

ADMISSION GRANTED.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Edward ALLEN et al.
    No. 2011-KD-2334.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 21, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 491-394; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1492.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Erik TRACZYK.
    No. 2011-KK-2149.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 2, 2011.
   In re Traczyk, Erik; — Defendant; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated October 19, 2011; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 473-300; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1352.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Eddie Lee MOORE a/k/a Phil Moore.
    No. 2011-OC-2330.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 2, 2011.
   In re Moore, Brenda; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 4274; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,893-CW.

Not considered, not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5.


text:
    F. Patrick QUINN, III v. Julie QUINN.
    No. 2011-CC-2303.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 2, 2011.
   In re Quinn III, F. Patrick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 637-411; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-C-866.

Stay recalled; writ denied.


text:
    Haley Major GREEN v. Christopher Michael GREEN.
    No. 2011-CJ-2242.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 2, 2011.
   In re Green, Christopher Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 20,192; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CU 0319.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Edward ALLEN a/k/a “Skinny”, et al.
    No. 2011-KK-2349.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 2, 2011.
   In re Allen, Edward; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 491-394; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1492.

Denied.


text:
    In re Appeal from DISCIPLINARY BOARD DECISION NO. 10-PDB-120.
    No. 2011-OB-1856.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Reed, Ellis; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal from Disciplinary Board Decision No. 10-PDB-120.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-022.
    No. 2011-OB-1925.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Goza, Cynthia A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of Disciplinary Board, No. ll-PDB-022.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-015.
    No. 2011-OB-1980.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Garner, Dianne B.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board No. ll-PDB-015 Office of Disciplinary Board, No. ll-PDB-015.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-008.
    No. 2011-OB-1993.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Monaco, Anthony P.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board No. ll-PDB-008 Office of Disciplinary Board, No. ll-PDB-008.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    Willie J. ZENO, Sr. v. FLOWERS’ BAKING COMPANY.
    No. 2011-C-1234.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Zeno, Sr., Willie; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated September 23, 2011; Workers’ Compensation District 04, No. 2010-02790; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1413.

Not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    Pam JONES, in her Capacity as Assessor of Lincoln Parish v. SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CO. Rich Bailey, in his Capacity as Assessor of Ouachita Parish v. ANR Pipeline, Southern Natural Gas Co. and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. Mary T. “Terry” Baker, in her Capacity as Assessor for Union Parish v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    No. 2011-C-1242.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re ANR Pipeline Company, et al.; Southern Natural Gas Company; Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review 3rd Judicial District Court Divs. C, A, Nos. 53,999, 43,464, 2009-4304; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,-347-CA, 46,348-CA, 46,351-CA.

Not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Agnes Wylonda Johnson CARROLL.
    No. 2011-C-1844.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Cagle, Donna Cruse; Cruse, Tommy et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Union, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 9408; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,327-CA.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Parish of East Baton Rouge and the Department of Public Works v. Anthony DOUGLAS and the Personnel Board of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge.
    No. 2006-C-0675.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Anthony Douglas; — Defendant; Applying for a Motion to Enforce this court’s decision of June 2, 2006 wherein it denied plaintiffs’ writ application, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 466,636; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2004 CA 1448.

Denied.


text:
    Richard FERTITTA v. ALCOA, INC., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-2128.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Global Remediation Inc. f/k/a Bella Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 11-847; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1289.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Sidney GILLS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0637.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Gills, Sidney; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 390-925; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0100.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles BUTLER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1574.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Butler, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 430-209; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0630.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kenyon BUDWINE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1618.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Budwine, Kenyon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 20349-07, 22116-03; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00346.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kirt K. HALL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2469.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Hall, Kirt K.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 02-92-1099; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1327.

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. Albert PATTERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2470.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Patterson, Albert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 09-87-0498; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1167.

Denied.


text:
    David JACOBSON v. Robert HENDERSON, et al.
    No. 2010-CI-2476.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Jacobson, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C-2010-0797-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-01117.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mark PITTMAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2501.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Pittman, Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 03-221; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-735.

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. Christopher JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2502.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Johnson, Christopher; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 453603; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010-KW-1262.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Warren RANGE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2504.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Range, Warren; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 11-81-0975; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1263.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. See also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Demetrius THOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2505.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Thomas, Demetrius; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 2, No. 243,675; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-821-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gregory HARTSHORN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2508.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Hartshorn, Gregory; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 07-2393; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-681.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leonard E. BLACKBURN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2509.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Blackburn, Leonard E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 08-CR-10-97839; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1075.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Andrew DIXON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2511.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Dixon, Andrew; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 04-F-0085; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46024-RH.

Denied.

CLARK, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Antonio D. HALL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2523.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Hall, Antonio D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 140947; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-105-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph V. FOSTER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2525.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Foster Jr., Joseph V.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 78649; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45996-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terrence K. BENOIT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2539.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Benoit, Terrence K.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR-04-1005; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-01037 KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Calvin TOLBERT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2540.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Tolbert, Calvin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 171,362; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. -46,-072-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dallas C. TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2545.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Taylor, Dallas C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 06-F-2683; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46028-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Frederic Lubron BIRGANS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2561.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Birgans, Frederic Lubron; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 09-F0298-3; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,982-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrell MORGAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2589.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Morgan, Darrell; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 378-032; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1363.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald W. HOLTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2590.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Holton, Donald W.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 17863; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1301.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Emanuel WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2648.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Williams, Emanuel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 348-945; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1420.

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. Stephon JAMES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2651.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re James, Stephon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 343846, 394007; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1362.

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. Rogers ATKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2762.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Atkins, Rogers; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 82384; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-087-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eugene BAKER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2796.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Baker, Eugene; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 25060; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00731.

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

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph MARTIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2797.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Martin, Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 422046; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1371.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert COLE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2845.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Cole, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 160,826; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,170-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. C.W.W.
    No. 2010-K-2866.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re W., C.W.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR-367-07; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-531.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Chris PHILLIPS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0012.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Phillips, Chris; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 07-93-0031; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1540.

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

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Frederic Lubron BIRGANS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0166.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Birgans, Frederic Lubron; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. C-20103108; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,218-CW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cefus Jermore JENKINS.
    No. 2011-KO-0857.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Jenkins, Cefus Jermore; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 455682; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA1471.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone HUNTER.
    No. 2011-KO-0889.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Hunter, Tyrone; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 266,549; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,194-KA.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy SANTINI.
    No. 2011-KO-0984.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Santini, Timothy; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 08-1257; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-594.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry D. WILLIAMSON, Jr.
    No. 2011-K-1002.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Williamson Jr., Larry D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Franklin, 5th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 2008-468F, 2008^69M; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,179-KA, 46,180-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James L. CASS.
    No. 2011-K-1006.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Cass, James L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 260683; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,228-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kent Dale SIMON.
    No. 2011-K-1008.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Simon, Kent Dale; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson Davis, 31st Judicial District Court Div. O, No. CR-797-09; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 10-1111.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jason D. CLAYTON.
    No. 2011-KO-1015.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Clayton, Jason D.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 152185; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 10-1303.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Daryn GISCLAIR.
    No. 2011-K-1031.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 497-272; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-1410.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jarman Gerard JONES.
    No. 2011-KO-1035.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Jones, Jarman Gerard; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 08-776; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-786.

Denied.


text:
    Hazel PACE (D), et al. v. HEALTHSOUTH SPECIALTY HOSPITAL OF NORTH LOUISIANA.
    No. 2011-CC-1653.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Healthsouth Specialty Hospital of North Louisiana; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-211; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,653-CW.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    Cheryl Denise KENLY & Randy Lee Kenly v. Sherry D. FULLER, D’Arbonne Water Systems, Inc. & Arch Specialty Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-C-1784.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Kenly, Cheryl Denise; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Union, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 41,950; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-398-CA.

Denied.


text:
    LUV N’ CARE, LTD. v. JACKEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED.
    No. 2011-CC-1790.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Luv N’ Care Ltd.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 10-1891; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46760-CW.

Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant.


text:
    Richard LE, et al. v. NITETOWN, INC.
    No. 2011-C-1826.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Nitetown Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 2007-2833; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1239.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Staci KLANSKY, et al. v. HOTARD COACHES, INC., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-1827.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Hotard Coaches Inc. d/b/a Hotard Destination Services; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 04-1153; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0489.

Denied. Adequate remedy on appeal


text:
    Charles J. PAL, Jr. v. STRANCO, INC. and Louisiana Commerce & Trade Association Self Insurers Fund.
    No. 2011-C-1834.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Pal Jr., Charles J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 06, No. 09-03883; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1507.

Denied.


text:
    Walter J. HORRELL v. Lisa C. MATTHEWS.
    No. 2011-C-1848.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Horrell, Walter J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2006-10962; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1694.

Denied.


text:
    Stephanie BRIDGES, et al. v. MURPHY OIL, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-1860.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Doucette, Lloyd; James Kovich; Miller, George; Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 103-308; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0836.

Denied.


text:
    Sandra Lee BOUDREAUX and Floyd Boudreaux v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF LOUISIANA, INC., Southern Development of Mississippi, Inc., National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, and Lexington Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-CC-1865.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford; Southern Development of Mississippi Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 158466; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0781.

Denied.


text:
    Kirsten GUY and Brittany Johnson v. Gary S. BROWN, Robert T. Weimer, IV, and Gary S. Brown, LLC.
    No. 2011-C-1875.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Guy, Kirsten et al.; Johnson, Brittany; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2010-3324; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-CA-0099.

Denied.


text:
    James ELLIS v. James SYLVESTER, M.D. and State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.
    No. 2011-C-1879.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Ellis, James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 20,108; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1260.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Joseph MODELISTE v. Marshall Estus SEHORN, Allen Toussaint, Rhinelander Music, Inc., Sansu Enterprises, Inc., Marsaint Music, Inc., and Marshall Estus Sehorn Productions, Inc.
    No. 2011-CC-1883.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Modeliste, Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 84-9262; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0776.

Denied.


text:
    CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Parish of East Baton Rouge, and the Department of Baton Rouge City Court v. Jennifer BETHLEY and the Personnel Board of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge.
    No. 2011-OC-1884.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re City of Baton Rouge et al.; Department of Baton Rouge City Court; Parish of East Baton Rouge; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 575,406; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1840.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Vincent MILITELLO.
    No. 2011-KK-1885.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Militello, Vincent; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 03-153; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-K-717.

Denied.


text:
    Sandra Lee BOUDREAUX and Floyd Boudreaux v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF LOUISIANA, INC., Southern Development of Mississippi, Inc., National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, and Lexington Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-CC-1886.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ter-rebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 158466; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 762.

Denied.


text:
    Leonard Anthony JACKSON, Marian Ann Gable Jackson, and Rudolph Jackson v. Donald P. YOUNG, Jr.; City of Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge City Police Department; Charlene Fontenot; Rebekah Fontenot; Nanette Greer, Principal of Baton Rouge Magnet High School; and East Baton Rouge Parish School Board through Charlotte Placide, Superintendent.
    No. 2011-C-1888.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Jackson, Leonard Anthony et al.; Jackson, Marian Ann Gable; Jackson, Rudolph; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 541,479; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1832.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert E. HELLMERS, III.
    No. 2011-KK-1899.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Hellmers, Robert E.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 499628-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1121.

Denied.


text:
    RIVERBEND CAPITAL, LLC v. Larry Van JACKSON, Jr., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-1910.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Riverbend Capital LLC; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2008-11997; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0719.

Denied.


text:
    LUV N’ CARE, LTD. v. JACKEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED.
    No. 2011-CC-1994.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Luv N’ Care Ltd.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 10-1891; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46822-CW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Norris HENLEY.
    No. 2011-KK-2005.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Henley, Norris; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 505-052; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1120.

Denied.


text:
    John L. DAVIS v. J.R. LOGGING, INC.
    No. 2011-CC-2124.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Davis, John L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation District 6, No. 11-00856; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1881.

Denied.


text:
    Samuel SUTTER v. Linda SUTTER.
    No. 2011-CC-2146.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Sutter, Samuel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 2010-10441; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1454.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kadeem BURDEN.
    No. 2011-KK-2152.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Burden, Kadeem; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 06-11-0497; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1595.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Timothy Hugh QUEEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2186.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re Queen, Timothy Hugh; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 3736-09; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 11-00718.

Denied.


text:
    JASPER CONTRACTORS, INC. v. E-CLAIM.COM, LLC, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Edgeweb Hosting, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2011-CC-2126.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 4, 2011.
   In re E-Claim.com LLC; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 591,-789; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0978.

Granted. Remanded to court of appeal for briefing, argument, and full opinion.


text:
    LOUISIANA HEALTHCARE CONNECTIONS, INC., et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS.
    No. 2011-CC-2445.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 5, 2011.
   In re Amerigroup Louisiana Inc.; Louisiana Healthcare Connections Inc.; United Healthcare of Louisiana Inc.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 603,-910, 603,915, 603,911; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2011 CW 1820, 2011 CW 1821, 2011 CW 1822, 2011 CW 1823.

Granted for the sole purpose of remanding the case to the court of appeal for reconsideration of its judgment denying the stay in light of this court’s judgments of November 2, 2011, and November 4, 2011. In all other respects, the application is denied.

JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ., would deny.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Lucas RODDY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-1852.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Roddy, Lucas; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 14222; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0707.

Denied. In the event that relator seeks documents under the Public Records Law, he must first address his request to the records’ custodians. R.S. 44:31 et seq.; State ex rel. Shelton v. State, 00-1901 (La.9/14/01), 796 So.2d 672; State ex rel. McKnight v. State, 98-2258 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/3/98), 742 So.2d 894.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2471.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Johnson, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 219,715; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46-012-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Sylvester BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2559.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Brown, Sylvester; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 76,216; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-045-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. George JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-2505.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Jones, George; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 245-982; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1337.

The application is transferred to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion or order for probation and imposition of a suspended sentence as relator shows by Inmates’ Request for Legal/Indigent Mail receipt that the application was submitted on or about June 17, 2011. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Andre Alexander JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2560.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Johnson, Andre Alexander;— Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 95F1265; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46068-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Shelia E. JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2588.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Jenkins, Shelia E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 72,953; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-943-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David WATERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2595.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Waters, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 44,195-C.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Thaddeus A. WILLIAMSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2596.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Williamson, Thaddeus A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 404770; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW1348.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James R. HIGH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2649.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re High, James R.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 95-6175, 01-3037; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-774.

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. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2655.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Lay, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 130364, 130275, 197086, 215530, 383759; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1511.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Richard LAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2660.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Lay, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 215530, 383759; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1510.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Kenneth TOLIVER v. Warden Jeffery TRAVIS, Chaplain Wayne Cook, et al.
    No. 2010-CI-2662.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Toliver, Kenneth; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 563,930; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0279.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Juanelo RAMIREZ v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2704.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Ramirez, Juanelo; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 22106; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010-KW-1389.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Richard JORDAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-2722.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Jordan, Richard; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 328-280; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1497.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. William A. ROE.
    No. 2010-K-2731.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Roe, William A.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 08-1838-1; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0724.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Brandon RIGGINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0023.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Brandon Riggins; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 04-4093; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KH-725.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Anthony HARVEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0028.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Harvey, Anthony; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 05-166543; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1456.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eric Joseph BURAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0049.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Buras, Eric Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 407,348; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0669.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jeromy L. HOLLINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0073.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Hollins, Jeromy L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 473181, 449663; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1588.

Denied.


text:
    Lewis BROWN v. James LEBLANC, Secretary of Department of Corrections, and Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.
    No. 2011-CI-0096.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Brown, Lewis; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 566,387; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1602.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tommy R. EMMONS, II.
    No. 2011-KP-0256.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Emmons II, Tommy R.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 458874, 470774; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1666.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joel Rene WHITMORE.
    No. 2011-KO-0614.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Whitmore, Joel Rene; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 158381,158377, 158378, 158379, 158380, 158372; to the Court of Appeal,- Second Circuit, Nos. 46,-120-KA, 46,121-KA, 46,122-KA, 46,123-KA, 46,124-KA, 46,125-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. George Jameson GRAY III.
    No. 2011-K-0707.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Gray III, George Jameson; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 9935-07; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-861.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Raymond JACKSON.
    No. 2011-KO-0798.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Jackson, Raymond; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 701066; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1415.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of LOUISIANA v. Yilver Moradel PONCE.
    No. 2011-KO-0833.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Ponce, Yilver Moradel; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 444,364; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1446.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Vasilios D. PAPPAS.
    No. 2011-KP-0980.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Pappas, Vasilios D.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 399616; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2350.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Quantrell CAGER.
    No. 2011-KP-1030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Cager, Quantrell; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 380-954; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-289.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur BIAS, Jr.
    No. 2011-KO-1063.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Bias Jr., Arthur; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10-1; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1440.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Fernand Paul AUTERY.
    No. 2011-KO-1077.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Autery, Fernand Paul; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 03-1561; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-0886.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gene Autry HILL.
    No. 2011-KO-1078.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Hill, Gene Autry; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 09-F2506-4; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,050-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph ALEXANDER.
    No. 2011-KP-1096.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Alexander, Joseph; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 08-4076; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-304.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. See also State v. Cotton, 09-2397 (La.10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030; State v. Thomas, 08-2912 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Damien ORBRO.
    No. 2011-KO-1105.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Orbro, Damien; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06-K-0805-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA10-1289.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Shawn HILLS.
    No. 2011-K-1120.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Hills, Shawn; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 24750; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1521.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Emmanuel BROWN.
    No. 2011-KO-1122.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Brown, Emmanuel; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 02-04-0126; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1765.

Denied.


text:
    Brian WILLIAMS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS, James Leblanc, Secretary, and Jerry Goodwin, Warden of David Wade Correctional Center.
    No. 2011-OK-1140.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Williams, Brian; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 577-831; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 2134.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Sherri Ann SEPULVADO.
    No. 2011-K-1151.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Sepulvado, Sherri Ann; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court No. 62620; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-435.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. J.J.N.
    No. 2011-CK-1155.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re N., J.J.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2008 CR 121163; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1410.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gene A. RUDOLPH.
    No. 2011-KK-1724.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10-0630; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0895.

Denied.

VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ., would grant.


text:
    MOREL G. LEMOINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. Shirley G. SOPRANO d/b/a Gino’s Exxon.
    No. 2011-CC-1915.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Morel G. Lemoine Distributors, Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 33,520, 34,173; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0801.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Juan MENDOZA, Andrea Mendoza, Individually, and on Behalf of their Minor Children v. GREY WOLF DRILLING CO., LP., Exco Partners Operating Partnership, LP., Andarko Petroleum Corporation, Wood Group Field Services, Inc., Michael T. Garcia, and Midsouth Consulting, Inc.
    No. 2011-C-1918.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Exco Partners Operating Partnership, LP.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 68,504; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,438.

Denied.


text:
    Santo FERRARA and Annie Wolfgang Ferrara v. QUESTAR EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION CO. and Ollie Arlene Phelps.
    No. 2011-C-1926.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Ferrara, Annie Wolfgang; Ferrara, Santo et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 69,590; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,357-CA.

Denied.


text:
    James SIMS v. USAGENCIES CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and McHenry Jackson.
    No. 2011-C-1927.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Sims, James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 567,414; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA1120.

Denied.


text:
    Paxton MORGAN, Mitchell Davis, Richard Davidson, Chris Thedford, Chad Burden, Billy G. Lewis, and Robert W. Taggart v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT.
    No. 2011-C-1929.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Davidson, Richard; Lewis, Billy G.; Morgan, Paxton; Thedford, Chris;— Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 516,307; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,362-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Billie G. SEMMES and Garrett Motor Cars, LLC v. Henry KLEIN.
    No. 2011-C-1931.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Garrett Motor Cars LLC; Semines, Billie G. et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2008-8233; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-1734.

Denied.


text:
    MONI ENERGY SERVICES CORP. v. Robert H. RHYNE, Jr. and Brent Trauth.
    No. 2011-CC-1937.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Rhyne Jr., Robert H. et al.; Trauth, Brent; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 09-3396; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-00397.

Denied.


text:
    CENTURY 21 SHACKELFORD-FRENCH REAL ESTATE, INC. v. Willie EALY and Ezell Ealy.
    No. 2011-C-1947.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Ealy, Ezell; Ealy, Willie et al.;— Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2007-1312; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,309-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Joey CANTERBURY, Daisey Pearah, Christie Leigh Shaffer, Michael Todd Stewart and Lindsey Lee Trautman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WILLIS KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER a/k/a Willis Knighton Health Systems d/b/a Willis Knighton Pierremont Medical Center.
    No. 2011-CC-1948.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re All Others Similarly Situated; Canterbury, Joey; Pearah, Daisey; Shaffer, Christie Leigh; Stewart, Michael Todd; Trautman, Lindsey Lee; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 1, No. 545,245; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,815-CW.

Denied.


text:
    John GOULAS and Vernon Wilkins v. B & B OILFIELD SERVICES, INC. John Goulas, et al. v. B & B Oilfield Services, Inc.
    No. 2011-C-1951.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re B & B Oilfield Services Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 115978; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 10-934,10-1393.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Patrick and Brenda O’CONNELL v. Dale BRAUD d/b/a Dale’s Builders and Remodeling.
    No. 2011-C-1953.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Dale Braud d/b/a Dale’s Builders and Remodeling; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 90,266; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1885.

Denied.


text:
    Carl JONES, et al. v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY ENTEX, et al. Steven Joseph, et al. v. Centerpoint Energy Entex, et al.
    No. 2011-C-1964.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Centerpoint Energy Entex et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 04-C-2184-D, 04-C-2357-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 11-0002,11-0003.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Leo POLLARD, Jr., et al. v. ALPHA TECHNICAL, et al. In re Harvey Term Litigation I.
    No. 2011-C-1969.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corporation; Shell Offshore Inc.; Shell Oil Company; SWEPI LP; Leo Pollard et al.;— Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, Nos. 2001-8708, 2001-20645; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2010-C-0788, 2010-C-0805.

Denied.


text:
    Gwendolyn JONES and Sandra Durbin v. RUSTON LOUISIANA HOSPITAL COMPANY, L.L.C. d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center a/k/a Lincoln General Hospital, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-1970.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Lincoln General Hospital; Northern Louisiana Medical Center; Ruston Louisiana Hospital Company, L.L.C., et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 54,465; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,356-CW.

Denied.


text:
    BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. Cynthia BRIDGES, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-C-1971.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Cynthia Bridges, Secretary of the Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 529766; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1860.

Denied.


text:
    Janis STRONG v. ELDORADO CASINO SHREVEPORT JOINT VENTURE; Eldorado Shreveport No. 1; Eldorado Shreveport No. 2.
    No. 2011-C-1975.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Strong, Janis; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 537,602-C; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,464-CA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Manuel SCOTT.
    No. 2011-KK-1976.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Scott, Manuel; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 103868; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 1279.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    Harold BROOKS v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS.
    No. 2011-C-1977.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10-3450-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-71.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


text:
    FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF JEANERETTE v. Alicia Johnson BUTLER, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-1979.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 14, 2011.
   In re Butler, Alicia Johnson; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 113084; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-00543.

Denied.