author: JOHNSON, Justice.

text:
    Robert H. TITUS, II v. IHOP RESTAURANT, INC., et al.
    No. 09-CC-951.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 1, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 2010.

      Rabalais, Hanna & Hebert, Melvin Alan Eiden, Lafayette, for applicant.
    Robert H. Titus, in proper person

      . The record does not include a copy of the insurance policy. Although this Court has nothing but the affidavit of Mr. Tracy Jackson which refers to the language of the abovemen-tioned policy, no one has contested the use of the affidavit or that the affidavit did not accurately quote the language of the policy.

   JOHNSON, Justice.

[ {We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether a defendant insurance company’s payments, pursuant to the no fault medical payment coverage provision in a commercial general liability policy, qualified as an acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription for all claims arising out of an accident. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the no fault medical payment provision in an insurance policy are due and payable, irrespective of the defendant’s liability in tort. Payment of medical expenses only, with no other acts by the insurer, does not constitute an acknowledgment of general liability for damages.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 13, 2007, the Plaintiff, Robert Titus, slipped and fell in an IHOP Restaurant in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. Shortly after the accident, IHOP’s insurer, Republic Fire and Casualty (“Republic”) paid part of the Plaintiffs medical expenses under the policy’s no-fault medical payment (“mecl-pay”) provision. On April 11, j g2008, the Plaintiff filed suit in Iberia Parish against several Defendants, including IHOP and Republic. It is undisputed that the suit was timely filed in Iberia Parish. LSA-C.C. art. 3492 provides that delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescriptive period of one year from the day of injury or when the damage is sustained. In this case, the accident occurred on April 13, 2007; the lawsuit was filed in Iberia Parish on April 11, 2008. However, the Plaintiff requested that service be withheld.

In response to the Iberia Parish suit, the Defendants filed an Exception of Improper Venue asserting that none of the Defendants were residents of Iberia Parish, and the accident occurred in Lafayette Parish. The trial court sustained the Defendants’ exception and transferred the suit to Lafayette Parish.

After the transfer, the Defendants filed an Exception of Prescription, arguing that prescription is not interrupted where suit is filed in an incorrect venue and service of process was not effected on the Defendants until after the prescriptive period elapsed. If an action is commenced in an improper venue, prescription is interrupted only as to a defendant served by process within the prescriptive period. LSA-C.C. art. 3462. Thus, once the prescriptive period has run, and the defendant has not been sued in the proper venue nor served within the prescriptive period, the case is prescribed. See, Riley v. Louisiana I-Gaming, 98-1106, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/10/99), 732 So.2d 541, 544, writ denied, 99-0997 (La.5/28/99), 743 So.2d 674.

| ;¡The Plaintiff argues that under LSA-C.C. art. 3464, prescription was interrupted by tacit acknowledgment of the debt by Republic’s payment of a portion of his medical bills. The Defendants contend that the payments made to the Plaintiff under the med-pay coverage provision in the Republic policy issued to IHOP does not constitute a tacit acknowledgment, and therefore, did not interrupt prescription. The Defendants relied on the affidavit of Tracy Jackson, the claims adjuster for Republic, who attested that “the Insuring Agreement for Coverage C-Medical Payments-contained in the applicable commercial general liability policy specifically states that ‘We [the insurance company] will make these payments regardless of fault’ up to the limit of the medical payments coverage for bodily injury caused by the accident ...” The affidavit demonstrated that these med-pay payments are quasi contractual in nature, and thus, not voluntary, and are due and payable regardless of liability when the medical payments were incurred as a result of injuries sustained in an accident.

After a hearing, the trial court overruled the Defendants’ Exception of Prescription. In oral reasons for judgment, the trial court stated:

As I’m looking at the documents that Mr. Titus has provided, they are: first, A 23 January 2008 letter to Mr. Titus from Tracy Jackson, ... and it reads: “We have been unable to reach you by phone. Please let us know if you’re still under treatment for your injuries sustained in this accident.”....
Then it’s followed by a March 22nd letter in which Mr. Titus encloses several — he reports his injuries, and towards the end of the — [letter] I guess that’s the second paragraph, he has this language: “I have calculated the total owed so far of $3454, not including lost wages, | transportation costs, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs, and miscellaneous costs which I have not yet calculated.”
So that seems to say that Mr. Titus is expecting to collect more than just medical bills.
The affidavit [of Tracy Jackson] says that the company makes these payments regardless of fault up to the limits of the medical payments coverage for bodily injury caused by an accident on the premises.
However, there’s no evidence that the insurance company communicated that it was denying any liability. And so it appears to me that this is one of those circumstances where the insurance company’s actions may have lulled the creditor into believing that it would not contest liability.

The Defendants applied for supervisory writs from the trial court’s ruling. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal denied the writ, stating, “[w]e find no error in the trial court’s ruling.” The Defendants then applied to this Court, and we granted the writ application. See, Robert Titus v. IHOP Restaurant, Inc., et al., 09-951 (6/26/09), 11 So.3d 495.

DISCUSSION

The only issue to be determined is whether the voluntary payment of medical benefits by the insurer constituted an acknowledgment of liability which interrupted prescription.

Any statute regulating the prescriptive period of a case is strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the obligation sought to be extinguished; in other words, the jurisprudence favors maintaining, as opposed to barring an action. Carter v. Haygood, 04-0646, p. 10 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, 1268. The burden of proof rests on the party asserting the exception of prescription, unless the plaintiffs claim is barred on its face, in which case the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish an 15interruption of prescription. Bailey v. Khoury, 04-0620, p. 9 (La.1/20/05), 891 So.2d 1268, 1275.

Louisiana Civil Code Article 3464 provides that prescription is interrupted when the debtor acknowledges the right of the person against whom he had commenced to prescribe. Such an acknowledgment is not subject to any particular formality. Lake Providence Equip. Co. v. Tallulah Prod. Credit Ass’n, 257 La. 104, 241 So.2d 506, 509 (1970). An acknowledgment may be written or verbal, express or tacit. Id. Acknowledgment “involves an admission of liability, either through explicit recognition of a debt owed, or through actions of the debtor that constitute a tacit acknowledgment.” Bracken v. Payne and Keller Co., Inc. 06-0865 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/5/07), 970 So.2d 582. A tacit acknowledgment arises from a debtor’s acts of reparation or indemnity, unconditional offers or payments, or actions which lead the creditor to believe that the debtor will not contest liability. Id.

In Flowers v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 381 So.2d 378, 382 (La.1979), this Court stated that acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription may be made by partial payment, by payment of interest, by pledge, or in other ways, and that it may be implicit, or it may be inferred from the facts and circumstances. Moreover, this Court specifically stated that the prescription of a delictual obligation may be interrupted by either an express or tacit acknowledgment. Id. at 381-82.

Thereafter, in Lima v. Schmidt, 595 So.2d 624, 633-34 (La.1992), this Court cited that:

Acknowledgment is a simple admission .... [which] only shows that the debt is not extinguished, that the creditor was not negligent, that the owner had a reason for not acting to preserve his right.
| (¡Acknowledgment interruptive of prescription results from any act or fact which contains or implies the admission of the existence of the right. It can be express or tacit.... [I]t can result from ... an offer made by the debtor even if not accepted by the creditor, at least if it is not conditional or in the nature of a mutual settlement....

See also, 5 Civil Law Translations-Bau-dry-Lacantinerie & Tissier, Prescription, §§ 476, 527-35 (esp. 531), 647, quoted in Lima, 595 So.2d at 633.

In Lima, 595 So.2d at 634, the court defined a tacit acknowledgment as occurring when a debtor performs acts of reparation or indemnity, makes an unconditional offer or payment, or lulls the creditor into believing he will not contest liability. Id.

In Mallett v. McNeal, 05-2289 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1254, the victim of an automobile accident sued the defendant and his insurer for the damages suffered as a result of the accident. Ten months after the accident, the victim demanded payment of property damage suffered, and the insurer made a payment to the victim. More than a year after the accident, the victim filed suit against the defendants for injuries and damages sustained as a result of the accident. In the petition, the victim urges that “although the action was filed more than one year after the accident, the action was not prescribed because [the insured’s] payment of the property damage served as an acknowledgment, thereby interrupting prescription.” Mallet, 05-2289 at 2, 939 So.2d at 1256. The defendants filed an Exception of Prescription. The trial court denied the defendants’ exception, and the court of appeal found no error in the trial court’s ruling. Upon review, this Court held that an insurance company’s unconditional payment of property damages constituted an acknowledgment |7sufficient to interrupt prescription of the Plaintiffs tort claims. Mallet, 05-2289 at 15-16, 939 So.2d at 1263-1264.

In the present case, the Defendants argue that the instant case can be distinguished from Mallet because the instant case involves “quasi-contractual” payments under a no-fault med-pay coverage provision, and Mallett involves payments made for property damage which is a damage (tort) claim that depends on a degree of acknowledgment of liability.

As a general rule, an insurer’s payment under the med-pay provisions of an insurance policy that is “due irrespective of defendant’s liability in tort,” does not “interrupt the course of prescription tolling against her tort claim.” See, Farley v. Pat Todd Oil Company, 544 So.2d 754 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1989), writ denied, 548 So.2d 1230 (La.1989)(Lemmon, J., concurring in denial of writ); Martinez v. Breaux Mart, Inc., 93-2257, 93-2497 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/13/94); 631 So.2d 471.

In Farley, supra., the plaintiff had two causes of action as a result of being injured while on the defendant’s premises, i.e., a quasi-contractual right to recover under the medical payment provisions and a cause of action ex delicto under the liability provisions of the insurer’s policy. The insurer paid the plaintiffs medical expenses under the med pay provisions of the policy and, without admitting liability, attempted to settle with plaintiff, but the plaintiff rejected the settlement offer. The court of appeal held that the payment of the medical expenses did not interrupt the course of prescription tolling against her tort claim. However, the defendant-insurer tacitly acknowledged the obligation to pay the wife’s medical expenses by making partial payment. The Court held that this payment sufficiently interrupted | ^prescription as to the claim for medical expenses, but not for the personal injuries of the wife. In the Supreme Court’s denial of supervisory relief in Farley, Justice Lemmon concurred that, “[t]he payments were made under the medical payments feature of defendant’s policy and the payment was due irrespective of defendant’s liability in tort.”

As in Farley, the Third Circuit also held in Touchet v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al., 542 So.2d 1142 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1989), writ denied, 546 So.2d 1214 (La.1989), that “[ljegal interruption does not regularly transfer from one obligation or action to another”.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal has held that prescription was interrupted by payments of bills and benefits under a commercial insurance policy where payments were made under the bodily injury section of the policy and exceeded the med pay policy limit. See, Sinegal v. Kennedy, 04-299 (La.App. 3rd Cir.9/29/04), 883 So.2d 1079, writ denied, 04-2688 (La.1/7/05), 891 So.2d 683.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the school board and its insurer never acknowledged that they would have interrupted prescription on student’s personal injury claim. The court noted that because neither agreed to pay anything for the purpose of interrupting prescription, there was nothing that would have led student’s mother to believe that it was not necessary to preserve her right to additional damages, other than medical expenses, by initiating legal proceedings. See, Woods v. St. Charles Parish School Bd., 00-1350 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/23/01), 783 So.2d 387, writ denied, 01-0506 (La.4/20/01), 790 So.2d 638.

hThe Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proving that the Defendants “lulled” him into believing they would not contest liability by making payments under the no-fault med-pay coverage provision. The record demonstrates clearly that the Plaintiff was not “lulled” into inaction, since he did actually file his lawsuit within the prescriptive period. His error was filing the suit in an improper venue, and not obtaining service upon the Defendants within the prescriptive period.

We conclude that an insurer’s payment of medical claims, pursuant to the no fault medical pay coverage provision in an insurance policy, does not result in a tacit acknowledgment of all general damage claims. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the lower courts and grant the Peremptory Exception of Prescription.

REVERSED.

      . Judge Benjamin Jones, of the Fourth Judicial District Court, assigned as Justice Pro Ten:pore, participating in the decision.

      . In the Petition for Damages, the Plaintiff staled that the accident occurred as he was walking to the restroom in IHOP, he "stepped off of the carpeted floor of the dining area onto a plastic tray that was protruding from an adjacent food cart onto a recently wet-mopped tile floor.” The Plaintiff argued that as a result of the slip and fall, he incurred bodily injuries, which required medical attention. The Plaintiff also argued that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendants, who are domiciled in Lafayette Parish and Dallas, Texas.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Adam F. HUTTON.
    No. 2009-B-1185.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Dec. 1, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 2010.

      Charles Bennett Plattsmier, Baton Rouge, Damon Shawn Manning, for applicant.
    Alston Law Firm, LLC, Elizabeth A. Alston, Covington, for respondent.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

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

UNDERLYING FACTS

Respondent’s brother, Steven Allen Hutton (“Steve”), was married in April 1996 to his second wife, Landra Hutton (“Lan-dra”). Steve and Landra had no children together but Landra had two young sons from a previous marriage.

During the marriage, Steve worked for Sperry-Sun, a subsidiary of the Dresser-Rand Company. On April 24, 1997, Steve signed a “Dresser Benefits Family Information Form,” naming Landra as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Sometime thereafter, Sperry-Sun was acquired by Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton”), and Steve went to work for Halliburton.

Steve’s employment with Halliburton required him to work overseas for extended periods of time. Steve’s long absences from the United States caused strain in his personal life, and by the fall of 1999, Steve and Landra had mutually decided to divorce. Respondent prepared a community property settlement and partition |2which Landra executed on November 5, 1999. Respondent signed the community property partition on Steve’s behalf pursuant to a power of attorney granted to him by Steve on November 1, 1999. Steve and Landra’s divorce was final on August 30, 2000. Less than four months later, on December 22, 2000, Steve was killed in an automobile accident in Saudi Arabia while -working for Halliburton.

Within days of his brother’s death, respondent was able to access computer records reflecting that the value of Steve’s life insurance policy was in excess of $800,000. These records did not show who the beneficiary of the policy was, and Halliburton refused to disclose the name of the beneficiary to respondent, although the company did confirm that respondent was not the designated beneficiary, nor were his two siblings. After receiving this information, respondent decided that his former sister-in-law was most likely still the beneficiary of the policy. In fact, respondent was correct, as an online log entry generated by a Halliburton benefits employee on December 28, 2000 confirmed that based upon “the bene form for the life and AD & D coverages,” Steve’s “ex wife Landra is the bene .... $ will probably pay to ex wife.... ”

However, respondent did not personally believe that Landra should benefit from Steve’s death. On December 29, 2000, the day before Steve’s funeral, respondent spoke with Landra concerning pictures of Steve that were to be displayed at the funeral service. Although Landra had expected to meet respondent at his home to deliver the pictures, he called her prior to the meeting and asked her to come to his office instead. When Landra arrived, there was no one else present. After spending a few moments crying together and reminiscing about Steve, respondent presented Landra with a document entitled Express Assignment of Claims Against Halliburton, Inc. and/or John Hancock Insurance Company by Landra Cornwall Hutton [individually], and Landra Cornwall Hutton as natural tutrix of Robert Miller and Matthew Miller. The assignment, drafted by respondent, provided that in consideration of the sum of $25,000, Landra assigned to respondent “any and all sum or sums now due or owing said assignors, and all claims, demands and cause or causes of action of whatever kind and nature which said assignors had or now have or may have against HALLIBURTON, INC. AND/OR JOHN HANCOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, arising out of the injury and death of Steven Allen Hutton, ...” The Express Assignment did not state that the life insurance policy was worth $817,570.78, and respondent admits that he did not specifically disclose that information to Landra. Rather, according to respondent, he simply told Landra that there was “a chance” she could be the beneficiary of Steve’s life insurance policy; that he did not think that was what Steve would have wanted; and that he would like for her to sign those rights over to him in exchange for $25,000. According to Landra, however, respondent told her that he did not know if she was still the beneficiary of the life insurance policy, but in the event she was, the funeral home needed “a guarantee” that if there were any unpaid expenses from Steve’s funeral she would cover them. Having remained on friendly terms with her former husband since the divorce, and not wishing to prevent him from receiving a proper burial, Landra signed the assignment. She concedes that she did not read the Express Assignment before signing it, nor did she ask respondent to provide her with a copy of the ^document. Respondent then gave Landra a check for $25,000, which according to Landra he insisted that she take for the benefit of her two young boys.

On January 2, 2001, respondent sent the Express Assignment to Halliburton, along with a copy of Steve and Landra’s community property settlement and partition. On January 5, 2001, Landra received a letter from Halliburton regarding the life insurance policy. Landra showed the letter to respondent, who told her that she would not receive any life insurance proceeds because the document she had signed at his office on December 29, 2000 had assigned all her rights in the policy to him. Respondent then directed Landra to write a letter to Halliburton instructing the company to remit the proceeds to him. Pursuant to Landra’s instructions, on February 28, 2001, John Hancock issued three checks payable to respondent in the total amount of $817,570.78, representing the value of Steve’s life insurance policy and the accidental death benefits. Respondent testified that he deposited the checks into his bank account before dividing the money equally with his brother and sister, retaining a third for himself. Respondent testified that the funds have since been exhausted and that he is now “judgment proof.”

On December 21, 2001, Landra filed suit against respondent, Halliburton, and John Hancock, seeking recovery of the life insurance proceeds. Landra subsequently | Bdismissed her claims against Halliburton and John Hancock, leaving respondent and his malpractice carrier as the sole remaining defendants. The suit remains pending.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

In August 2002, Landra filed a complaint against respondent with the ODC. Following its investigation, the ODC filed one count of formal charges, alleging that respondent’s conduct as set forth above violated Rules 8.4(a) (violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct) and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The ODC further alleged that respondent provided legal advice and representation to Landra in various matters both before and after the execution of the December 29, 2000 Express Assignment, and therefore engaged in a prohibited business transaction with a client, in violation of Rule 1.8(a) (a lawyer shall not knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client). Alternatively, in the event there was not an attorney/client relationship between respondent and Landra prior to the execution of the Express Assignment, the ODC alleged that he violated Rule 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented persons) by giving legal advice to a 1 ¡¡person who is not represented by counsel. Respondent answered the formal charges and denied any misconduct.

This matter then proceeded to a formal hearing on the merit s, at which respondent and Landra were the only witnesses. During the hearing, respondent and the ODC presented the following joint stipulation of facts:

1. Respondent has a brother who is now deceased whose name is Steven Hutton.

2. Steve and the complainant, Landra Hutton, were previously married but were divorced on August 30, 2000, prior to Steve’s death.

3. On or about December 22, 2000, Steve was killed in an automobile accident in Saudi Arabia.

4. On December 29, 2000, respondent met alone with Landra at his law office.

5. Steve’s funeral took place on Saturday, December 30, 2000.

6. On January 2, 2001, respondent faxed to Halliburton a copy of a December 29, 2000 express assignment and a copy of a November 5, 1999 community property partition agreement between Landra and Steve.

7. On February 28, 2001, John Hancock Insurance Company issued three checks payable to respondent, representing $817,570.78 in total life insurance proceeds.

Hearing Committee Report

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

Prior to meeting with Landra on December 29, 2000, respondent knew that Steve had a life insurance policy with Halliburton, the value of which was at least $800,000. He also knew that he and his siblings were not the beneficiaries of the |7policy. Moreover, respondent did not have any documents or information in hand that named Steve’s estate or some person other than Landra as the beneficiary-

Despite his knowledge of this information, respondent drafted the Express Assignment for execution by Landra. He failed to advise her of the total value of the life insurance policy, failed to advise her of the identity, known or unknown, of the beneficiary of the policy, and failed to advise her of her right or the potential need to seek independent counsel prior to securing her signature on the Express Assignment.

Respondent contends that he advised Landra of the need for, and the legal effects that flowed from, the Express Assignment. Respondent testified that he told Landra that he thought there was a chance that she might be the beneficiary of Steve’s life insurance policy, and that in the event she was, he did not think that was what Steve would have wanted, “and that what I’d like you to do is to sign those rights over to me; in exchange for that I’ll give you $25,000.00.”

Based on these findings, the committee found that respondent violated Rules 4.3 and 8.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In his dealings with Landra regarding the life insurance policy, respondent gave legal advice to an unrepresented person other than the advice to secure counsel. Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that Landra’s interests were or had a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with his interests as Steve’s brother. Further, respondent knew or should have known that Landra misunderstood his role in the matter, and as such, should have made a reasonable effort to correct any misunderstanding.

Turning to the alleged Rule 8.4(c) violation, the committee noted, again, that prior to meeting with Landra on December 29, 2000 respondent was aware of certain key facts and information regarding Steve’s life insurance policy. Respondent did not share this information with Landra before she executed the Express Assignment. He Istestified that he “summed up the agreement” to Landra on December 29, 2000 and told her that “if you have any rights you will lose them.” Respondent further testified that he was willing to offer Landra $25,000 in return for any rights she may have had. On the other hand, Landra testified that when respondent first presented the Express Assignment to her, she was under the impression that the funeral home needed the document to guarantee payment of any unpaid funeral expenses.

Landra testified that the Express Assignment was executed by her at respondent’s office outside the presence of a notary. A review of the Express Assignment indicates that the document was purportedly signed in the notary’s presence. Lan-dra further testified that respondent gave her the $25,000 check after they left the notary’s office and told her that he knew she was “having it hard right now” and wanted her to take the check. Considering this testimony, and after reviewing the language of the Express Assignment, the committee found that respondent misled Landra as to the true purpose for the Express Assignment and for the $25,000 payment, in violation of Rule 8.4(c).

Rule 1.8(a) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquiring an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client when the terms are unfair and unreasonable, and the client is not afforded a reasonable opportunity to obtain independent counsel. The ODC asserts that respondent provided legal advice and representation to Landra in various matters before and after the December 29, 2000 Express Assignment, and that Landra reasonably relied upon respondent as both her attorney and former brother-in-law and believed he was acting in her best interest with respect to the Express Assignment. Respondent rejects this allegation, contending he did not have a professional relationship with Lan-dra until after the Express Assignment was executed.

| gLandra claims that respondent represented her in her divorce from Steve and testified that she thought or believed that respondent was actually looking out for her best interests in the community property settlement agreement that he prepared in November 1999. However, the committee noted that the settlement agreement clearly reflects that respondent was representing Steve in the proceeding.

Although the committee could not reach a determination as to what Landra actually thought or believed at the time she executed the Express Assignment, it found that the terms of the Express Assignment were of such a nature that respondent should have given Landra a reasonable opportunity to obtain independent counsel. Respondent prepared and sought Landra’s signature to a contractual agreement by which he would knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to her. The committee further found that the $25,000 given in exchange for $817,570.78 in life insurance benefits was unconscionable, unfair, and unreasonable. Accordingly, respondent clearly violated Rule 1.8(a).

The committee determined that respondent violated duties owed to his client, the public, and the legal profession. His conduct was intentional and caused actual harm to Landra, who was deprived of her pecuniary interest in Steve’s life insurance policy. Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is disbarment.

The committee found the following aggravating factors apply: a dishonest or selfish motive, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of the victim, and indifference to making restitution. In mitigation, the committee found that respondent has no prior disciplinary record.

Considering all the circumstances, the committee recommended that respondent be disbarred.

| ^Respondent filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report, arguing that the formal charges should be dismissed. Respondent also asserted that he was deprived of due process of law by the committee.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

A panel of the disciplinary board heard oral argument in this matter on January 29, 2009. Days before oral argument, on January 23, 2009, respondent filed a motion to supplement the record with the deposition of Robert Hayter, Halliburton’s in-house counsel for benefits, taken during the civil case filed by Landra against respondent. The board granted the motion, in part to facilitate its evaluation of respondent’s claim that he was deprived of due process by the hearing committee; however, the board ultimately gave Mr. Hayter’s testimony no weight.

In its report, the disciplinary board initially addressed respondent’s complaint that he was deprived of due process in this matter. First, he implies that it is unconstitutional “to disbar a young lawyer on the grounds of a swearing match between him and an individual seeking to recover money from him in a civil lawsuit.” The board found this argument is unsupported by any legal authority and is frivolous. First and foremost, it is primarily respondent’s own testimony, not Landra’s | n testimony, which along with the documentary evidence establishes the misconduct in this case. Secondly, under respondent’s reasoning, a lawyer could never be disciplined on the basis of a credibility determination between the lawyer and the complainant. The board observed that like the justice system generally, credibility evaluations are inherent in the lawyer disciplinary system. Such evaluations are made by hearing committee members, who “act as the eyes and ears” of the court. See In re: Bolton, 02-0257 (La.6/21/02), 820 So.2d 548.

Respondent’s second due process argument pertains to his allegation that the committee “impermissibly crossed the line from an adjudicative function to a prosecu-torial function” because they asked him questions at the hearing. The board observed that respondent does not cite any case law to support his serious allegation of improper conduct by the committee. The board further noted that the committee did not “adjudicate” respondent’s disbarment; rather, the committee reported a recommendation. In any event, after reviewing the portions of the hearing transcript of which respondent complained, the board found “nothing more than a search for the truth which does not offend due process.” Given that each hearing committee is tasked with being “the eyes and ears of [the supreme] court,” the board concluded that there is nothing improper in committee members asking questions and pursuing forthright answers.

Turning to the merits of this matter, the board found that the facts surrounding the assignment of rights to respondent are essentially undisputed, as respondent has admitted that he drafted that document, presented it to Landra without fully informing her of the consequences, and asked that she execute it. Respondent has further admitted that he acted in an effort to thwart Landra from receiving the benefits of Steve’s life insurance policy because he believed that Landra should not receive the |12money, notwithstanding that Steve had made a legally binding election for Landra to receive the benefits. Respondent testified that he believed it was “more probable than not that Landra was still the beneficiary of the life insurance policy” when Steve died. The ODC further submitted evidence that Steve and Landra remained on relatively good terms after their divorce, and that not having any children of his own, Steve was fond of Lan-dra’s children. Finding this evidence is unrefuted, the board upheld the committee’s finding that the ODC proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent committed misconduct by having Landra make an uninformed assignment to him of Steve’s life insurance benefits. Respondent actively concealed from Landra the true value of the life insurance proceeds, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The board also found that by his actions, respondent formed an attorney/client relationship with Landra at the time he presented her with the Express Assignment. However, he failed to afford Landra a reasonable opportunity to have independent counsel review the Express Assignment before she signed away the right to collect approximately $818,000 in life insurance benefits. The board determined that this conduct violated Rule 1.8(a).

Lastly, the board found respondent violated Rule 8.4(a). As respondent testified, his goal all along was to deprive Landra of the proceeds of a life insurance policy which were lawfully designated to her. Additionally, while this provision received little attention at the hearing, the Express Assignment drafted by respondent contains language purporting to sign away not only the rights that Landra had for herself, but any rights that her minor children may have had as well. By employing such language, the board concluded that respondent intended that no one other than | ^himself or his siblings should receive the life insurance payout, no matter what Steve’s beneficiary designation may have been.

The board determined that respondent violated duties owed to his client, the public, and the profession. His conduct was knowing and intentional, and caused serious harm. The board accepted the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the committee. Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is disbarment.

Characterizing respondent’s dealings with Landra as “simultaneously dishonest and motivated by self interest,” the board recommended that respondent be disbarred. The board further recommended that respondent make restitution to Lan-dra of the full amount of the life insurance proceeds, less the $25,000 he paid her in connection with the Express Assignment.

Respondent filed an objection to the disciplinary board’s recommendation. Accordingly, the case was docketed for oral argument pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(G)(1)(b).

DISCUSSION

Bar disciplinary matters fall within the original jurisdiction of this court. La. Const, art. V, § 5(B). Consequently, we act as triers of fact and conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the alleged misconduct has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re: Quaid, 94-1316 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 343; Louisiana State Bar Ass’n v. Boutall, 597 So.2d 444 (La.1992). While we are not bound in any way by the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the manifest error standard [ 14is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re: Caulfield, 96-1401 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 714; In re: Pardue, 93-2865 (La.3/11/94), 633 So.2d 150.

It is undisputed that respondent drafted an assignment of life insurance benefits for execution by his former sister-in-law, and paid her $25,000 in connection with the assignment. At the time that he presented the document to Landra, respondent knew that the value of his brother’s life insurance policy was in excess of $800,000, and that neither he nor his siblings were the designated beneficiaries of the policy. Rather, respondent was certain that Landra was the beneficiary, but he did not believe that she should benefit from Steve’s death, regardless of the legally binding election made by Steve. The hearing committee made a factual finding that respondent misled Landra as to the true purpose for the assignment of rights and for the $25,000 payment. This finding is supported by the record, and based on this finding, respondent violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

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).

|1fiWe find that respondent acted intentionally, and caused Landra actual harm. Under the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the applicable baseline sanction in this matter is disbarment.

The following aggravating factors apply: a dishonest or selfish motive, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, vulnerability of the victim, and indifference to making restitution. In mitigation, respondent has no prior disciplinary record.

Under the facts of this case, we find there is no justification for any downward deviation from the baseline sanction. Following his brother’s death, respondent used his legal training to defraud Landra of the life insurance proceeds to which she was entitled because he decided that she should not receive them. Such conduct by a lawyer is simply indefensible. Accordingly, we will adopt the disciplinary board’s recommendation and impose disbarment.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral argument, it is ordered that Adam F. Hutton, Louisiana Bar Roll number 25718, be and he hereby is disbarred. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. 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.

       Judge Benjamin Jones, of the Fourth Judicial District Court, assigned as Justice Pro Tem-pore, participating in the decision.

      . Landra was not represented by separate counsel in this matter; rather, Landra testi-lied that she believed respondent was acting as both her attorney and as the attorney for his brother.

      . John Hancock issued Halliburton's group life insurance policy.

      . Respondent testified in his sworn statement that he also considered the possibility that the beneficiary of his brother's life insurance policy may have been his girlfriend, his first ex-wife, or the charities he supported, like the SPCA. However, respondent conceded that he ultimately did not seek out any of these individuals or entities to obtain an assignment of rights from them, nor did he ever consider the possibility of doing so.

      . Regarding the circumstances under which she executed the Express Assignment, Landra testified at the hearing that she trusted respondent and “wasn't in the right frame of mind ... I was emotional. I was upset.” In his testimony, respondent acknowledged that he knew Landra was in an emotional state but "did not consider it” because “I wanted to make sure that ... she did not benefit from my brother's death.”

      . Respondent explained that his portion of the funds were “depleted” as the result of various expenditures, including “stock losses, gambling losses, vacations, you know, whatever, ...” When asked whether today he would give his share back to Landra if he had it, respondent answered, "No." Indeed, respondent testified that he would do nothing differently if he had the chance:
      I’ve certainly thought about it just about every day since all this came about and certainly still think about my brother every day, and I've run it over a million times in my mind I promise you, and I don’t think I would have done anything different.

      . These matters include the following: (1) When she was eighteen years of age, Landra was convicted of simple robbery. Subsequently, during her marriage to Steve, Landra sought legal advice from respondent on the expungement of her criminal record. Landra discussed the matter with respondent while he was in law school and after respondent became a lawyer (prior to Steve’s death), and respondent continued to advise Landra on this issue after Steve's death. (2) Before marrying Steve, Landra was married to and had two children with Richard Miller. Landra discussed with respondent her legal rights in seeking an increase in Mr. Miller's child support obligation to her. These discussions took place while respondent was in law school and after he became a lawyer (prior to Steve’s death), and respondent continued to advise Landra on this issue after Steve’s death. (3) Following Steve's death, Landra’s mother wanted to travel outside Louisiana with Lan-dra’s children. To facilitate the travel, respondent drafted and notarized a power of attorney authorizing Landra’s mother to seek any necessary medical treatment for the minor children during the trip.

      . The ODC stipulated that respondent did not represent Landra in connection with the December 29, 2000 Express Assignment. However, the disciplinary board rejected this stipulation and found that the record supports a determination that respondent was, in fact, representing Landra in connection with the Express Assignment. Both respondent and the ODC objected to the board's determination in this regard.

      . Respondent’s counsel represented that Mr. Hayter’s deposition had not been introduced at the hearing before the hearing committee (at which time respondent did not have counsel) because "Respondent was too emotionally distraught at the end of the hearing ... to remember to introduce this exhibit ...”

      . During his deposition, Mr. Hayter testified that for a time, "there was nothing on file” reflecting the beneficiary of Steve’s life insurance policy, and that he was personally unaware of any such designation by Steve prior to his death. The board concluded that Halliburton’s confusion was due to the fact that Steve made his election while working for Sperry-Sun, which Halliburton later bought. Furthermore, the board rejected the relevance of Mr. Hayter's1 testimony on the issue of beneficiary designation, stating that "the insurer's beliefs, not Halliburton's, control who may be paid under the policy.... We note that if it has any relevance, the testimony of the Halliburton representative is entirely consistent with ODC's showing that Mr. Hutton attempted to exploit any confusion that arose from his brother's employer being acquired by Halliburton, in order to substitute himself as payee.”

      . The board determined that the committee erred in finding a violation of both Rules 1.8(a) and 4.3, as these rules are mutually exclusive.

      . The ODC also charged respondent with dealing improperly with an unrepresented person, in violation of Rule 4.3, or entering into an improper business transaction with a client, in violation of Rule 1.8(a). However, those charges are largely ancillary to the Rule 8.4(c) violation, which is the "heartland” of the misconduct in this matter. See In re: Simon, 04-2947 (La.6/29/05), 913 So.2d 816; In re: Rome, 01-2942 (La.9/26/03), 856 So.2d 1167.

      . We do not adopt that portion of the board’s recommendation calling for respondent to make restitution to Landra of the net life insurance proceeds. Rather, that issue is most appropriately addressed in the pending civil litigation.


text:
    Javier ORELLANA v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION.
    No. 2008-C-0041.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 24, 2008.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2006-8512; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-CA-1095.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    Linda REED v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION d/b/a Louisiana Citizens Coastal Plan.
    No. 2008-C-0744.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 24, 2008.
   In re Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp. d/b/a; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2006-6239; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-CA-1592.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Linda REED v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION d/b/a Louisiana Citizens Coastal Plan.
    No. 2008-C-0748.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Oct. 24, 2008.
   In re Reed, Linda; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2006-6239; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-CA-1592.

Denied.

KN0LL, J., would grant.


author: KIMBALL, C.J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ambrose NEWTON.
    No. 2009-KK-2426.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 13, 2009.
   In re Newton, Ambrose; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 456-626; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1498.

Writ granted. The ruling of the trial court is reversed and the defendant is hereby ordered released on the $50,000 bond previously posted prior to conviction.

KIMBALL, C.J.,

concurring, based upon the trial judge’s failure to provide adequate justification for increasing the defendant’s bond, notwithstanding this court’s request for such justification.

KNOLL, J., would deny the writ.

GUIDRY, J., would deny the writ.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rufus HAMPTON, III v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2434.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 13, 2009.
   In re Hampton III, Rufus; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 65,855, 65,856, 67,750, 65,931.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. John Ryan STEPHENS.
    No. 2009-KK-2463.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 17, 2009.
   In re Stephens, John Ryan;-Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 12717; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2053.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Aaron BERNARD.
    No. 2009-KK-1178.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 18, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana;-Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 09-06-0639; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW1372R.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Matthew SCOGGINS.
    No. 2009-KK-2489.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 18, 2009.
   In re Hudson, Henry Reverend; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 482-770; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1563.

Granted. The ruling of the trial court is reinstated.

KIMBALL, C.J., VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would deny the writ.


text:
    M.J. FARMS LTD. v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION et al.
    No. 2009-CC-2414.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 18, 2009.
   In re Exxon Mobil Corp.; Exxonmobil Corporation et al.; Tensas Delta Exploration Co. L.L.C.; Wagner, Bryan; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 24,055; to the Coui’t of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-01322.

Granted. All proceedings stayed pending further orders of this Court.


text:
    CARROLLTON PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH v. The PRESBYTERY OF SOUTH LOUISIANA OF the PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.).
    No. 2009-CC-2461.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 18, 2009.
   In re Presbytery of South LA of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 565482; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 1943.

Stay order recalled; writ denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Matthew SCOGGINS.
    No. 2009-KK-2489.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 19, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiffs Applying for Rehearing of this Courts action dated November 18, 2009; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. B, No. 482-770; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1563.

Denied.

KIMBALL, C.J., VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


author: KNOLL, J.,

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Matthew SCOGGINS.
    No. 2009-KK-2502.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 19, 2009.
   In re Scoggins, Matthew; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 482-770; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1563.

Denied.

KNOLL, J.,

additionally concurs. The opposition to the State’s application filed with the court of appeal was not a writ and was the improper procedure to seek relief from the trial court’s ruling.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Mike ALVAREZ.
    No. 2009-K-0328.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 07-965; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KA-558.

Granted.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Trey Daniel ELLIOTT.
    No. 2009-KK-1727.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 160152, 160153, 160154, 160155; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 4480 9-KW, 44810-KW, 44807-KW, 44808-KW.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Graylin SURTAIN.
    No. 2009-KK-1835.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 472-083; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0497.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Troy RHODES.
    No. 2008-KP-2348.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Rhodes, Troy; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 432-709; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-797.

Granted. This Court will defer consideration of the merits of the present applications to provide relator with an opportunity to supplement his claim in the district court and to obtain a ruling on the claim as supplemented.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Hilton MILLET.
    No. 2009-KK-1834.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 08-76; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-K-404.

Granted. Case remanded to court of appeal for docketing, argument, if appropriate, and opinion.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Shawn DRAKE.
    No. 2009-KD-2038.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Drake, Shawn; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 9-02-168.

Stay lifted. Writ denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.

JONES, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Percy L. JONES.
    No. 2008-KO-2895.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Jones, Percy L.;-Defendant Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated September 4, 2009; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. L, No. 06-5344; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-306.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence DUDLEY and Jacklin Gerac Dudley.
    No. 2008-K-1285.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Dudley, Clarence et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 04-02-314; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2006-KA-1087.

Writ not considered; untimely.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Shelton TOOMER, Jr.
    No. 2009-KP-0104.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Toomer Jr., Robert Shelton; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 02-CR9-85062; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 2224.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Reggie HARRIS.
    No. 2009-KP-0293.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2-04-0569; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 1841.

Denied.

KIMBALL, C.J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marvin WOODEN.
    No. 2009-KP-0418.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Wooden, Marvin; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 417-682; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-1382.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Trent MILLER.
    No. 2009-KP-0440.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Miller, Trent; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 59-197; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 08-01120.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony TAYLOR.
    No. 2009-K-0467.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Taylor, Anthony; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 472-387; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-0517.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. David BEDOYA.
    No. 2009-KO-0484.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Bedoya, David; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 06-3497; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KA-630.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dominique J. CASSON.
    No. 2009-K-0501.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. C 11066; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 07-1081.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Walter J. COPELAND, Jr.
    No. 2009-K-0502.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Copeland Jr., Walter J.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 379655; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KA 2551.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Katie S. SAVOY.
    No. 2009-K-0509.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Savoy, Katie; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 110725; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 08-716.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Steven Mark “Marc” ANDERSON.
    No. 2009-K-0518.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Anderson, Steven Mark “Marc”;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 110556-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-962.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James ALLEN.
    No. 2009-K-0522.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Allen, James; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 471-476; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-0926.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gene Mitchell OLIVIER.
    No. 2009-K-0528.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
    Prior report: La.App., - So.2d -.
   In re Olivier, Gene Mitchell; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 232585; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-520.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Mark S. LEWIS.
    No. 2009-K-0531.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Lewis, Mark S.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 21579; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA 1381.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Davede L. DAVILLIER.
    No. 2009-K-0579.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Davillier, Davede L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 431,203; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA 0846.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn Michael BRUNET.
    No. 2009-K-0582.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Brunet, Glenn Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 477,774; to the Court of Appeal, Fust Circuit, No. 2008 KA 1670.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lloyd W. ADDISON.
    No. 2009-K-0589.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Addison, Lloyd W.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 06-2416; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-KA-680, 08-KA-461.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn Michael BRUNET.
    No. 2009-KO-0625.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Brunet, Glenn Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 477,774; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA 1670.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Damion LOUIS.
    No. 2009-KK-1887.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Louis, Damion; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 479-653; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0848.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bridgette ELLIS.
    No. 2009-KK-1910.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Ellis, Bridgette; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, Shreveport City Court, No. 003166121; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44872-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ricky Joe WEIR.
    No. 2009-KK-1922.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Weir, Ricky Joe; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 57,666; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44858-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. MOREL G. LEMOINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Martin G. Lemoine, and Veronica Lemoine.
    No. 2009-KK-1979.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Lemoine, Morel G.; Lemoine, Veronica; Morel G. Lemoine Distributors Inc. et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 70287F, FI, F2; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0179.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Barbette WILLIAMS.
    No. 2009-KK-2029.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Williams, Barbette; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, Nos. 438-702, 438,864; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0906.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cody DECOTEAU.
    No. 2009-KK-2030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Decoteau, Cody; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 07-08-0055; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0888.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tommie A. BENTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1963.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Benton, Tomraie A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 96 F-0120-G; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,904-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tommie A. BENTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0647.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Benton, Tommie A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 04-F-2402; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,412-KH.

Denied. State ex rel. Bernard v. Cr.D.C., 94-2247, p. 1 (La.4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, 1175.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald SYLVAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0301.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Sylvas, Donald; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 166702-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 1865.

Denied. Untimely, not cognizable on collateral review, 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 ex rel. Clifford HIGGINBOTHAM v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0305.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Higginbotham, Clifford; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 435-046; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2008-K-0310, 2008-K-1407.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Louis JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0321.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Jackson, Louis; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 9239B, 11614A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-00015.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Luqman M. SHABAZZ v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0323.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Shabazz, Luqman M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 04-05-0277; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 1948.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Sherry JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0338.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Johnson, Sherry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 94-3869-F, 94-3440-F; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-1524.

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.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert Kevin MCCARTNEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0339.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re McCartney, Robert Kevin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 234,925; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 08-00943.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry SHELBY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0340.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Shelby, Larry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 400-013; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-1481.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Mike SILVO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0342.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Silvo, Mike; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 286137; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 1797.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Harold Joe BLACK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0343.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Black, Harold Joe; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 67,071; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44236-KH.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Phillip C. LAZARD, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0344.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Lazard, Phillip C. Jr.;-Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 469-762; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-0677.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Peter CELESTINE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0345.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Celestine, Peter; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 05-CR-43314, 95-839; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 08-00966.

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; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).

KNOLL, recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Russell J. AUGUILLARD, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0346.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Auguillard Jr., Russell J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 113,228; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-0552.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ivy L. MAY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0347.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re May, Ivy L.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 360-737; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-1343.

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. Preston RUSSELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0348.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Russell, Preston; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 303,382; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 08-K-1418.

Denied. See State ex rel. Fleury v. State, 93-2898 (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 488.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Antonio TYSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0349.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Tyson, Antonio; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 203983; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 182.0.

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.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jatazz Rashun WARREN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0353.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Warren, Jatazz Rashun; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 06-F0825; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,671-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0356.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Brown, Charles; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 9-06-962; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA 1080.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Harold Dewayne BAYLOR, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0275.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Baylor Sr., Dewayne Baylor;— Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 281055; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 08-141.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jeanie HANO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-2954.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Jeanie Hano; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 369912; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2008 KW 1377, 2008 KW 0474.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael Aaron JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KO-2908.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Jackson, Michael Aaron; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 242,438; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 43,-989-KH, 44,127-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ruben J. ANDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0675.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Anderson, Ruben J.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Motion to Enforce this Court’s Order, dated April 3, 2009; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. G, No. 443-293.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Danny HARGROVE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-2992.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Bailey, Hargrove, Danny; — Plaintiffs Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated October 16, 2009; Parish of Ouachita, Fourth Judicial District Court, Div. G., No. 02-F0432; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38,123-KA.

Reconsideration Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Issac DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-2738.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Davis, Issac; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated September 25, 2009; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 07-99-0035; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 1312.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kelvin Ray SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2432.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Smith, Kelvin Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 2-80-296.

The application is transferred to the district court with instructions to the district judge to act on relator’s motion for new trial and/or annual evidentiary hearing judgment as relator shows by Inmates’ Request for Legal/Indigent Mail receipt that the application was submitted. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment. A copy of the application is attached.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James C. EVANS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2342.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Evans, James C.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 99-1914; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 00-KA-1766.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the petition to the Jefferson Parish district court for its consideration.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Troy RHODES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0785.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Rhodes, Troy; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 432-709; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0040.

Granted. This Court will defer consideration of the merits of the present applications to provide relator with an opportunity to supplement his claim in the district court and to obtain a ruling on the claim as supplemented.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jody Ray SOUDER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0262.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Souder, Jody Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 5786-07; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. KH 08-1365, KH 08-1199.

Writ Granted. If it has not done so already, the district court is ordered to supply relator with a copy of the transcript of his guilty plea colloquy, see State ex rel. Simmons v. State, 93-0275 (La.12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094, as the district court itself has already ordered on October 28, 2008, and to furnish proof of compliance to this Court.


text:
    Sherry Teresa ADAMS v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER SHREVEPORT, et al.
    No. 2009-C-2056.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport, et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 504,588-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,627-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Elonda EALEM, et al. v. PREVOST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-2035.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Schexnayder, Glenn Dr.;- — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 06-12248; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-0931.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Nancy BOYT v. Richard Louis HAIK and John R. Vermillion.
    No. 2009-CC-1986.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Boyt, Nancy; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2006-16406; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CW 1190.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Judith Senac SHERAR v. Julie BESSE and Lloyd Besse, Jr.
    No. 2009-C-1993.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Besse, Julie et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2003-11477; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 2003R.

Denied.


text:
    DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS AS TRUSTEE v. Marion A. DUDEK.
    No. 2009-C-1995.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Dudek, Andrea K; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2008-6190; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0129.

Denied.


text:
    The KROGER COMPANY v. L.G. BARCUS & SONS, INC., et al.
    No. 2009-C-2002.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Kroger Company; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 470,454; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,200-CA.

Denied.

KIMBALL, C.J. and VICTORY, J„ would grant.


text:
    BLOOM’S INCORPORATED v. PERFORMANCE FUELS, L.L.C. and/or Performance Fuels, Inc.
    No. 2009-C-2003.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Performance Fuels Inc.; Performance Fuels L.L.C. et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 06-237; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 44,-259-CA, 44,452-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Carlton MAXEY v. UNIVERSAL CASUALTY COMPANY.
    No. 2009-CC-1927.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Universal Casualty Co.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 81,786-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-00714.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    SHINN ENTERPRISES, INC. and Gis Sports of Nevada, Inc. v. Jack M. CAPELLA, Capella Consulting, LLC, and Continental Casualty Company.
    No. 2009-CC-2022.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Continental Casualty Company;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2005-12352; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-0994.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Jermaine BROWN v. ENTERGY CORPORATION and Entergy Services, Inc.
    No. 2009-CC-1928.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Cox Communications Louisiana LLC; — Third Party; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 547618; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0740.

Denied.


text:
    Theodore T. EBARB v. HOLT AUTO GROUP d/b/a Ashley Motor Company and Union Standard Insurance Company.
    No. 2009-CC-1929.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Ashley Motor Company; Holt Auto Group d/b/a et al.; Union Standard Insurance Co.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation District 1-W, No. 08-21611; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44881-WCW.

Denied.


text:
    CENTOFANTI OF OAKWOOD, INC., d/b/a Centofanti Gourmet Market v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and J.D. Ellington Insurance, Inc.
    No. 2009-CC-1930.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re J.D. Ellington Insurance Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 635-197; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-C-480.

Denied. Motion to substitute brief in opposition granted.


text:
    Wayne MITCHELL v. CAJUN CONCRETE SERVICES, INC. and The Gray Insurance Company.
    No. 2009-CC-1931.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Cajun Concrete Services Inc. et al.; Gray Insurance Company; — Defendant/s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2005-4534; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-1003.

Denied.


text:
    GREEN TRAILS, LLC v. STEWART TITLE OF LOUISIANA, INC., Stewart Title Guaranty Company, and Baton Rouge Title Company, Inc.
    No. 2009-CC-1936.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Stewart Title Guaranty Company; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 550461; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0717.

Denied. Motion to strike opposition denied.


text:
    Latonya M. ALLUMS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, Kendall T. Allums v. The PARISH OF LINCOLN, et al.
    No. 2009-C-1938.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Allums, Latonya M. et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 50246; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,304-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Beth Shalom SYNAGOGUE v. GUIDEONE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-1939.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re GuideOne Mutual Insurance Co. et al.;- — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 541302; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0940.

Denied.


text:
    CENTOFANTI OF OAKWOOD, INC., d/b/a Centofanti Gourmet Market v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and J.D. Ellington Insurance, Inc.
    No. 2009-CC-1941.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Centofanti Gourmet Market; Cen-tofanti of Oakwood Inc. d/b/a; — -Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 635-197; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-C-481.

Denied. Motion to substitute brief in opposition granted.


text:
    Denis MULVIHILL v. Irwin I. MARTIN and U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Agency, Inc., et al.
    No. 2009-C-1443.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Haley, Katie; Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. et al.; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Concordia, 7th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 41,761; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-1498.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

JONES, J., would grant.


text:
    Shannon MENARD et al. v. LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.
    No. 2009-C-1869.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Boxton, Scott; Lafayette Insurance Company et al.; Prejean Service Company; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2002-2319; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-0029.

Granted.


text:
    The CADLE COMPANY v. Harry S. ANDERSON.
    No. 2009-C-1942.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Cadle Company; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 05-12301; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0068.

Denied.


text:
    Louis E. MADERE, et al. v. David and Renee CHRISTENSON, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-1943.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Christenson, David et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2008-604; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-0748.

Denied.


text:
    Scot and Klea BROWN v. Todd NESOM, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-1946.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Continental Casualty Company; Nesom, Todd; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 573-608-D; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0761.

Denied.


text:
    Scott THOMPSON v. Susan MOLINARI.
    No. 2009-CP-1914.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Thompson, Scott; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Martin, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 072107-F; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-00613.

Denied.


text:
    MARINO INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. Jennie Lee HIGGENBOTHAM, Wife of/and Wilson Johnson.
    No. 2009-C-1915.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Marino Investments L.L.C.;— Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2005-08989; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0183.

Denied.


text:
    GULF STATES UNDERWRITERS OF LOUISIANA, INC. v. NANTUCKET BAY SUBDIVISION, L.L.C.
    No. 2009-CC-1892.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Gulf States Underwriters of LA Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 225,546; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-00651.

Denied.


text:
    Jake John SCHIRO, Sr., et al. v. PARISH OF ST. BERNARD, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-1894.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Human Resources Division St. Bernard Parish Gov’t; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 105-856; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-0634.

Denied.


text:
    David HARRELL v. BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY.
    No. 2009-CC-1908.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Brookshire Grocery Company;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation, No. 08-20268; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 09-00649.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Jake John SCHIRO, Sr., et al. v. PARISH OF ST. BERNARD, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-1953.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re St. Bernard Parish Government;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 105-856; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-0634.

Not timely.


text:
    Jeanne M. OLSON v. RAPIDES PARISH SHERIFF & TAX ASSESSOR, et al.
    No. 2009-C-0982.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Olson, Jeanne M.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated October 2, 2009; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 214,886; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-1288.

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

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Toni Swain ORRILL, et al. v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS FAIR PLAN, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-1896.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Orrill, et al., Toni Swain; — Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated September 18, 2009; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2005-11720; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-0791.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    Kimberly K. LEBLANC and Albert LeBlanc v. Dr. William Nicholas LANDRY, III.
    No. 2009-C-1705.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re LeBlanc, Albert, et al. — Plaintiffs; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated October 2, 2009, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2001-14290, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 08-CA-1643.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Joann BREITLING and Sam Breitling v. The CITY OF SHREVEPORT.
    No. 2009-C-1330.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Breitling, JoAnn; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated September 25, 2009; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 492259; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,112-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Rhonda SERIGNET c/w Demetreus Bailey v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
    No. 2009-C-1371.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Bailey, Demetreus; Serignet, Rhonda;' — -Plaintiffs Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated October 2, 2009; Parish of Orleans, Civil Service Commission For the City of New Orleans, Nos. 7296 7297; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-0469.

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


text:
    Shondrea DINNAT and Denny Dinnat v. Dr. David Spence TEXADA, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-1975.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Christus Health Central Louisiana; Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hosp.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 230056; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-00665.

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


text:
    C.M. THIBODAUX COMPANY, LTD. v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-1918.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.; American Excess Ins. Co.; American Reinsurance Co.; Employers Mutual Casualty Co.; Executive Risk Indemnity Co:; First State Ins. Co.; Gray Ins. Co.; International Surplus Lines Ins. Co.; North River Ins. Co.; Puritan Ins. Co.; Scottsdale Ins. Co.; TIG Ins. Co.; Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. i/k/a; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2001-16872; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-0471.

Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration in light of Green v. Auto Club Group Insurance Co., 08-2868 (La.10/28/09), 24 So.3d 182.


text:
    CHERAMIE SERVICES, INC. and Attecia Cheramie v. SHELL DEEPWATER PRODUCTION, INC. and Filco International, Inc.
    No. 2009-C-1633.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Shell Deepwater Production Inc. et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 99-693; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-CA-1231.

Granted.


text:
    Melissa Baxter ZIEGLER v. Vicki PANSANO, et al.
    No. 2009-C-1787.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Group Integrity L.L.C. d/b/a; Keller Williams Realty Mandeville; Raymond, Janine Z.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2005-14107; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CA 1495.

Denied.


text:
    Melissa Baxter ZIEGLER v. Vicki PANSANO, et al.
    No. 2009-C-1788.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Ziegler, Melissa Baxter; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 2005-14107; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CA 1495.

Denied.


text:
    Jerry L. LAFLEUR v. M. LANGENSTEIN & SONS, INC.
    No. 2009-C-1874.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re M. Langenstein & Sons, Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, District # 08, Nos. 07-02192, 07-07281; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0140.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Natasha VENEABLE o/b/o Her Minor Child, Nala Raynae Oubre and Jamecia Jones o/b/o Her Minor Child, Jamyriah Danielle Oubre o/b/o Mario Oubre v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS.
    No. 2009-CC-1701.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re River Correctional Center L.L.C.;' — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 567,990; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CW 2603.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.

JONES, J., would grant.


text:
    Cathy REINHARDT, Individually and on behalf of her minor son, Joseph Untz, II v. Terry L. BARGER and Barbara Barger, individually and on behalf of the minors, Brandon Barger, Brent Barger and Jacob Barger and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2009-C-1786.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Reinhardt, Cathy et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2005-13156; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 2363.

Denied.

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

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Stephanie TEASDALE Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Children Justin Teasdale and Chloe Stewart v. Joseph and Celeste HATHCOX, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Craig Chatelain and Allstate Insurance Company.
    No. 2009-CC-1888.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Teasdale, Stephanie et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 557,591; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0760.

Denied.


text:
    Walter SHEAR and Priscilla Shear v. David L. CHAMPAGNE; State Farm Insurance Company; Wayne N. Bruce; Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc.; American Contractors Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
    No. 2009-C-1966.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 565,091; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CA 2556.

Denied.


text:
    BUCKTOWN MARINA, L.L.C., and Julius F. “Sonny” Eirich, Jr. v. The PARISH OF JEFFERSON; Aaron F. Broussard, in his Capacity as Immediate Past Chairman of the Jefferson Parish Council and in his Capacity as Current Jefferson Parish President; and JEDCO Development Corporation a/k/a The Jefferson Parish Economic Development Commission (“JEDCO”).
    No. 2009-CC-1890.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Bucktown Marina, L.L.C. et al.; Eirich, Julius F. Sonny Jr.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 607-661; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-C-466.

Denied.


text:
    Cheryl Mooney JOHNSON, Roy W. Mooney, Lola M. Mooney, Julie Mooney Toney, Jerry Wayne Mooney, Charles Morice Mooney, Jeffery Allen Mooney, John Oliver Mooney and Patricia A. Mooney Perriloux, All Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Wilmer R. Mooney, Sr. and Jerry Lee Graham Mooney, Widow of Wilmer R. Mooney, Sr. v. Robert V. SHAFOR, M.D., Sanjay Raina, M.D., Sibaja Shome, M.D. and Slidell Memorial Hospital and its Employees.
    No. 2009-C-1921.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Johnson, Cheryl Mooney et al.; Mooney Sr., Wilmer R. Estate of; Mooney, Charles Morice; Mooney, Jeffery Allen; Mooney, Jerry Lee Graham; Mooney, Jerry Wayne; Mooney, John Oliver; Mooney, Lola M.; Mooney, Roy W.; Perriloux, Patricia A. Mooney; Toney, Julie Mooney; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 2006-16069, 2007-16729; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2008 CA 2145, 2008 CA 2146.

Denied.


text:
    Charles Richard CASARES, Carol Casares, Darbi Rice, Brian Rice, Melvin Edwards, III, Joyce Edwards, and Other Similarly Situated Persons v. JAMES M. BROWN BUILDER, INC., Brown’s Property Development, Inc., James M. Brown Real Estate, Inc., Brown Builders, Inc., James D. Brown, Annie M. Brown, B. Wayne Brown, Ellen Brown, Laurie Brown Dugan, Audubon Oil & Gas Corporation, and Twin Cities Development, L.L.C.
    No. 2009-C-2055.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Nov. 20, 2009.
   In re Brown Builders Inc.; Brown’s Property Development Inc.; Brown, Annie M.; Brown, B. Wayne; Brown, Ellen; Brown, James D.; James M. Brown Builder Inc. et al.; James M. Brown Real Estate Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 126,971; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,561-CA.

Denied.


text:
    C & C ENERGY, L.L.C. and Red Sox Investments, L.L.C. v. CODY INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.
    No. 2009-C-2160.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 22, 2010.
   In re Cody Investments L.L.C.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 523,066-B; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,630-CA.

Granted.


text:
    Roger D. PHIPPS v. Cynthia Nelson SCHUPP and Roland Lawrence Cutrer, Jr.
    No. 2009-C-2037.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 22, 2010.
   In re Phipps, Roger D.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2006-5956; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-1487.

Granted.