text:
    In re Arden WELLS.
    No. 2009-B-2343.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 11, 2010.

      Charles Bennett Plattsmier, Baton Rouge, Robert Samuel Kennedy, Jr., Shreveport, for appellant.
    Arden Wells, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

h This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Arden Wells, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension for threat of harm to the public. In re: Wells, 07-1071 (La.11/7/07), 967 So.2d 1148.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The ODC filed two sets of formal charges against respondent which were considered by separate hearing committees before being consolidated by order of the disciplinary board. The board then filed in this court a single recommendation of discipline encompassing both sets of formal charges.

07-DB-0U

Count I

In 2004, respondent was charged in Tan-gipahoa Parish with one felony count of extortion for communicating a threat to his opponent in a political campaign with the intention thereby to obtain something of value. He was later acquitted of the 12criminal charge; however, in August 2005, while the charge was still pending, respondent prepared an affidavit which was executed by Charles Chaney, an inmate then incarcerated at Hunt Correctional Center following his convictions of manslaughter and felon in possession of a firearm. The affidavit stated that during a meeting in 1996, Scott Perrilloux, the District Attorney for the 21st Judicial District, accompanied by another attorney and several members of the Hammond Police Department, gave Mr. Chaney $250,000 in cash to murder Cecilia Colona, a resident of Tangipahoa Parish. Respondent notarized the affidavit and then filed it into the public records of Tangipahoa Parish. Respondent did not investigate any of Mr. Chaney’s allegations before he prepared the affidavit, and he did not otherwise possess any independent, credible information to suggest that the substance of the charges made by Mr. Chaney concerning Mr. Perrilloux were true. Accordingly, and considering that respondent was then awaiting trial on the felony extortion charge brought by Mr. Perrilloux, the ODC alleged that “respondent intentionally filed what he knew to be a false affidavit as retribution for Perrilloux bringing felony charges against him,” in violation of Rules 8.2(a) (a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer) and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

| ¿Count II

In August 2006, Sandia Meyers and Shoreline Seafood, Inc., doing business as the Garden Spot Restaurant, filed a petition in district court in St. Tammany Parish appealing the judgment of a justice of the peace court in an eviction matter. On the morning of trial, September 18, 2006, respondent enrolled as counsel of record for Ms. Meyers and Shoreline Seafood. He then moved for a continuance, which was denied. During the trial, respondent made certain misrepresentations to the court which led the presiding judge, Judge William Knight, to observe that issues of “fraud” and “criminality” had surfaced in the proceeding. Specifically, respondent misrepresented to the court that an August 2005 lease was the operative contract in the dispute between the parties, notwithstanding that Ms. Meyers had signed a superseding lease on the same property in September 2006 in consideration for the dismissal of a prior suit against her by the landlord. Furthermore, respondent represented to the court that he was acting as counsel for both Ms. Meyers and Shoreline Seafood, despite the fact that respondent had been provided with documentation indicating that Ms. Meyers had previously transferred a majority interest in the corporation to a third party, Dale Guarino. In an effort to counter the legal effects of the donation, on the day before the hearing, respondent induced Ms. Meyers to revoke the donation to Mr. Guarino. Respondent did not reveal these events to the trial court. Moreover, respondent instructed Ms. Meyers to invoke the Fifth Amendment in an effort to conceal the true facts of the Guarino transaction. Finally, when it became apparent during the hearing that Judge Knight intended to rule against Ms. Meyers on the eviction, respondent improperly advised her to seek bankruptcy protection for Shoreline Seafood, despite knowing that she was not the owner of the corporation.

14At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Knight held respondent in contempt of court. Judge Knight fined respondent $100 and ordered him to serve nine hours in the St. Tammany Parish jail.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 8.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), 3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count III

In December 2006, respondent filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana naming some thirty defendants, including all of the judges of the 21st Judicial District. The judges had earlier recused themselves from hearing the criminal case in which respondent was charged with extortion, and an ad hoc judge was appointed to try the matter. Respondent alleged in the federal suit that the recusal of the district judges “manifested bias and prejudice against” him “by violating his right to due process of law and to be tried before an elected district judge as envisioned under the Louisiana Constitution.” Accordingly, respondent sought declaratory and injunc-tive relief enjoining the judges “from ever hearing any case brought by [respondent] personally or as lawyer for any person.”

Uln the same lawsuit, respondent alleged that in connection with the criminal case, District Attorney Scott Perrilloux and several of his assistants committed extortion and perjury, framed him for extortion, tainted the grand jury, tampered with evidence, obstructed justice, tampered with the jury, and made knowingly false statements to the court. The ODC contends that respondent made these claims without any credible evidence to support them.

In the same lawsuit, respondent sued Jacqueline Griffith, a citizen of Tangipahoa Parish who served as a juror in respondent’s criminal case. Although the jury returned a verdict of acquittal on the extortion charge, Ms. Griffith believed respondent to be guilty and voted as such. Respondent claimed in the suit that Ms. Griffith lied during voir dire and concealed her social relationships with material witnesses in the prosecution against him. However, the transcript of voir dire reflects that Ms. Griffith was candid about her social contacts with the district attorney and the state’s witnesses, notwithstanding which she believed she “could definitely be fair and listen to the facts.” The ODC alleged that respondent’s actions in suing Ms. Griffith compelled her to retain counsel and to seek the dismissal of the meritless claims against her.

Respondent ultimately dismissed the federal suit on his own motion. He nevertheless circulated copies of the petition in various public places in Tangipahoa Parish.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 3.1, 3.3, 8.2(a), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Count IV

On September 9, 2005, respondent filed suit on behalf of the plaintiff in the matter captioned Kerry “Skip” Wells v. Jimmy Pepitone, No. 2005-003054 on the docket of the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa. The suit alleged that the defendant committed a battery on the plaintiff. On September 27, 2005, Stephanie Hymel, an adjuster for the defendant’s homeowner’s insurer, State Farm Insurance Company, telephoned respondent seeking his agreement to an | ^extension of time to respond to the lawsuit. Respondent agreed both to a thirty-day extension of time and to notify State Farm in writing before taking any action adverse to the defendant. Ms. Hymel confirmed the agreement in a letter to respondent dated the same date.

On September 29, 2005, two days after his telephone conversation with Ms. Hy-mel, respondent filed a motion for preliminary default, reciting that no “motion for extension of time has been filed or granted.” On October 5, 2005, respondent confirmed a $5,000 default judgment against the defendant.

In the interim, State Farm had assigned the defense of the litigation to Hammond attorney Ashley Sandage. Upon learning of the default judgment, Ms. Sandage filed a petition to nullify the judgment on grounds of fraud and ill practices. Responding to the petition for nullity, respondent reconvened and sued Ms. Sandage personally, accusing her of filing a frivolous lawsuit. As a result, Ms. Sandage withdrew from the underlying suit and retained separate malpractice counsel. Thereafter, when Ms. Sandage’s attorney filed a motion for summary judgment seeking sanctions against respondent under La.Code Civ. P. art. 863, respondent dismissed his suit on August 3, 2006, acknowledging that the default judgment he had obtained was “null and void and should now be formally vacated and set aside.”

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 3.1, 4.4(a) (in representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person), and 8.4(c).

08-DB-036

On May 22, 2007, the ODC filed in this court a petition seeking respondent’s immediate interim suspension. On May 30, 2007, the court ordered a hearing in the 17matter, which was conducted over five days in June, July, and August 2007. On October 3, 2007, the hearing committee submitted a report recommending that respondent be interimly suspended. This court accepted the hearing committee’s recommendation on November 7, 2007.

On October 11, 2007, while the petition for interim suspension was pending, Timothy Polezcek hired respondent to defend him in a criminal matter involving a charge of aggravated rape. Mr. Polezcek paid respondent $5,000 towards his $15,000 fee to handle the matter. After being retained by Mr. Polezcek, respondent performed little or no work in his legal matter, aside from appearing with Mr. Polezcek at his arraignment and filing routine pre-trial discovery motions. When respondent was interimly suspended by this court in November 2007, he was forced to withdraw from Mr. Polezcek’s case. Nevertheless, and despite requests by his client, respondent failed to refund the unearned portion of the legal fee paid by Mr. Polezcek.

The ODC alleged that respondent’s conduct violated Rules 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 1.5(f)(5) (failure to refund an unearned fee), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Respondent was served with both sets of formal charges and filed responses thereto, denying any misconduct. He also raised numerous constitutional defenses to his conduct. After a lengthy series of pretrial disputes between respondent and the ODC, the matters then proceeded to separate hearings on the merits.

IsHearing Committee Reports

07-DB-07U

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

Count I: Respondent admitted in his testimony that he was acting as an attorney when he met with Mr. Chaney, prepared the affidavit accusing Mr. Perril-loux of conspiring with other individuals to commit murder-for-hire, and filed it into the public records. Further, respondent admitted to conducting little, if any, investigation of the accusations set forth in the affidavit before filing it into the public records. Respondent knew these accusations, made by a felon in prison, were highly unusual, inflammatory, and suspect. Therefore, the committee determined that respondent’s motivation in filing the affidavit into the public records of Tangipahoa Parish (see note 2, supra) was “mixed, ie., it could help his potential client (remotely), it could arguably ‘preserve it’ (by recording it), but, as a ‘public document,’ it became an easy, cheap, effective, official (it was now a ‘recorded affidavit’ in the public records) way to extract some measure of retribution against Mr. Perrilloux, the District Attorney who prosecuted him in his extortion case and an individual who Respondent viewed as a member of the ‘cabal’ that was ‘out to get’ him.” [Emphasis in original.] Based on these findings, the committee determined that respondent violated Rules 8.2(a) and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as charged in the formal charges.

Count II: Respondent’s defense to this count is that he had limited knowledge about the case because he was retained by Ms. Meyers on the day before the trial before Judge Knight, and hence he did not have sufficient time to comprehend the import of the completed leases and “donation” at issue, much less the impact of these | (¡documents on Ms. Meyers’ authority to act or the ownership of Shoreline Seafood. Therefore, respondent contends, he did not act with malice toward the tribunal nor did he knowingly withhold information or obstruct the court. However, the committee found that the testimony and evidence refuted respondent’s claim of limited knowledge and lack of deceit. The committee heard credible testimony that ten days or more before the trial, respondent telephoned Mr. Guarino, the legal 75% owner of Shoreline Seafood, and that during the telephone conversation, respondent exhibited comprehensive knowledge of the transactions and the import of the documents at issue. Respondent sought Mr. Guarino’s agreement to revoke the “donation” ten days or more before the hearing before Judge Knight, and when Mr. Guarino refused, respondent created the “revocation” document unilaterally, knowing that the original document was a transfer (not really a donation) for consideration; a unilateral revocation was totally invalid. Thus, the committee found that respondent deliberately lied to Mr. Guari-no, “revoked” the donation anyway despite the fact that there was no agreement, lied to Judge Knight, and had his clients participate in the deception, which then required them to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in front of Judge Knight. Respondent then effectively compounded this whole series of events by instructing his clients to put the company in bankruptcy, which as minority shareholders they were clearly without authority to do. Based on these findings, the committee determined that respondent violated Rules 3.1, 3.3, and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as charged in the formal charges. Respondent’s actions seriously misled the tribunal and placed his clients in jeopardy regarding potential perjury. He also cost Mr. Guarino substantial time and money in rebuking the clearly false legal strategic moves respondent undertook in acting as if his clients controlled the majority ownership in Shoreline Seafood.

11nCount III: The committee found that respondent’s actions in filing suit in federal court against Mr. Perrilloux, the judges of the 21st JDC, a juror in respondent’s criminal case, and various law enforcement officers was unquestionably disruptive to a tribunal and prejudicial to the administration of justice. It follows respondent’s pattern of using the courts as a method for revenge. Based on these findings, the committee determined that respondent violated Rules 3.1, 3.3, and 8.4(d). The committee did not make any findings concerning the violation of Rule 8.2(a) alleged in the formal charges.

Count IV: Respondent testified that his client in this matter, Kerry Wells, was a close personal friend of James Peoples, a former deputy sheriff who was assisting respondent in reviewing the backgrounds of the potential jurors in respondent’s criminal extortion trial. As a quid pro quo for that assistance, apparently respondent agreed to represent Mr. Wells, who had a cause of action for battery against Jimmy Pepitone which was about to prescribe.

Respondent further testified that he was busy preparing for the defense of the extortion trial and was likewise attempting to pursue the matter and obtain the assistance of Mr. Peoples. Mr. Peoples kept pressing respondent to obtain results for Mr. Wells. Respondent testified that he had no recollection of receiving a telephone call from the insurance adjuster, Ms. Hymel, asking for an extension of time and had no recollection of receiving her letter of September 27, 2005 (approximately one month after Hurricane Katrina) confirming their discussion. The issue is whether respondent thereafter acted improperly, maliciously, or selfishly, i. e., to keep Mr. Peoples employed and happy and helping him in his criminal trial, in filing a default Injudgment, notwithstanding that he had previously granted an extension to the insurance adjuster. On that issue, the committee concluded that respondent’s testimony about not recalling the phone conversation or receipt of the letter from the insurance adjuster has some limited credibility, given the impact of Hurricane Katrina, and recognizing, with some justification, respondent’s all-consuming concern about his pending criminal trial. Nevertheless, the committee concluded that respondent’s principal motivation was to keep Mr. Peoples, an individual who was assisting him in his extortion trial, satisfied.

The committee found that conversely, respondent provided no justification whatsoever for the personal countersuit against Ms. Sandage, the attorney who filed the petition for nullity of the default judgment. Respondent testified that he had prior “problems” with Ms. Sandage, and that his principal motivation in filing the countersuit against her was that “she hadn’t investigated it either. I think maybe she should have made some effort to contact me and find out why I had done what I had done before she filed that Petition for Nullity. I think she had an obligation as well.” The committee found that respondent made no effort to amicably resolve the issues associated with the propriety of taking the default judgment. A dispute arose concerning an extension of time to file an answer or other responsive pleading in a rather straightforward battery/assault suit for damages, yet respondent again escalated the issue by instituting a counterclaim against the attorney, forcing her recusal, the retention of additional counsel, her notification of her insur-anee carrier, and, yet again, another complaint to the ODC.

112Based on these findings, the committee determined that respondent violated Rules 3.1, 4.4(a), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as charged in the formal charges.

Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the committee did not discuss in its report the duties violated by respondent, his mental state, or the injury caused, nor did the committee assess the applicable baseline sanction. The committee also did not directly address the aggravating or mitigating factors present. The committee did note, however, that presented with “numerous opportunities to reconsider and rethink the consequences of his actions,” respondent has “instead used every opportunity to exponentially increase the acrimony, litigation, accusations and abusive legal tactics to redress his perceived wrongs ...” [Emphasis in original.] For this misconduct, the committee recommended respondent be disbarred.

Respondent filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report and recommendation in 07-DB-074.

08-DB-036

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

On October 11, 2007, respondent agreed to represent Mr. Polezcek with respect to the charge of aggravated rape filed against Mr. Polezcek in Tangipahoa Parish. Mr. Polezcek paid respondent $5,000. Respondent made one appearance in court at Mr. Polezcek’s arraignment, and he filed a motion for discovery and inspection on behalf of Mr. Polezcek. Nothing else transpired insofar as the representation of Mr. Polezcek was concerned prior to respondent’s November 7, 2007 interim suspension.

11sThe committee further found that Mr. Polezcek made a timely request to respondent for the return of the $5,000 fee, as evidenced by a letter of November 27, 2007 to respondent from Mr. Polezcek. In response, respondent advised that he attempted to respond to Mr. Polezcek by certified mail on January 8, 2008 and later by telephone, offering to refund $2,000, but he never received an affirmative response from Mr. Polezcek. Respondent admits that he owes a refund to Mr. Polezcek and acknowledges that he offered a refund in the amount of $2,000.

The committee also found that shortly after Mr. Polezcek retained respondent, Mr. Polezcek became aware that disciplinary action might be pending against respondent. While respondent did not affirmatively disclose the matter at the inception of his representation of Mr. Polezcek, the committee noted that Mr. Polezcek’s testimony and his subsequent actions indicate that the pending disciplinary matter was being discussed in the community and that, when Mr. Po-lezeek inquired about respondent’s status as a practicing attorney, respondent admitted that he could no longer handle the case because he was suspended. The committee did not therefore believe that respondent attempted to conceal the matter. The committee further concluded that respondent did not earn the bulk of the $5,000 fee paid by Mr. Polezcek and that respondent did not act appropriately in attempting to refund only $2,000, or in failing to place any amount of the fee that remained in dispute in his client trust account pending the resolution of such dispute.

Based on these findings, the committee found that respondent violated Rule 1.5(f)(5) of the Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to the failure to return an unearned fee. However, the committee found the ODC did not prove by clear and convincing evidence the alleged violations of Rules 1.4 or 8.4(c).

114The committee determined that the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is suspension. In aggravation, the committee observed that respondent has substantial experience in the practice of law (admitted 1987). The committee found no mitigating factors present.

Considering all the circumstances, the committee recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months, retroactive to the date of his interim suspension. The committee further recommended that all but six months of the suspension be deferred, conditioned upon respondent’s making restitution to Mr. Polezcek in the sum of $4,000. The committee recommended that this period of suspension run concurrently with any sanction imposed in respondent’s other disciplinary proceeding.

Neither respondent nor the ODC filed an objection to the hearing committee’s report in 08-DB-036.

Disciplinary Board Recommendation

07-DB-07Í & 08-DB-036

After review of the record, the disciplinary board found that the hearing committees’ factual findings are not manifestly erroneous, with two minor exceptions corrected by the board. The board further found that the committees correctly applied the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The board determined that respondent knowingly and intentionally violated duties owed to his clients, the public, and the legal system. He has consistently abused the legal system to exact retribution against individuals who, in his mind, have wronged him. This conduct has caused significant harm to the legal system in the 21st Judicial District in the form of delay and frustration. Numerous public officials and | ^private citizens have been burdened by the litigation initiated by respondent, and the reputations of certain public officials have been tarnished by respondent’s false accusations. Furthermore, Mr. Po-lezcek has not received a refund of the attorney’s fees he paid to respondent. Considering the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Laruyer Sanctions and this court’s prior jurisprudence, the baseline sanction for respondent’s misconduct is disbarment.

In aggravation, the board found the following factors: prior disciplinary offenses, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law. The board found no mitigating factors are supported by the record.

In light of the egregious nature of respondent’s conduct and the numerous aggravating factors present, the board recommended respondent be disbarred.

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: Banks, 09-1212 (La.10/2/09), 18 So.3d 57. While we are not bound in any way by the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, we have held the manifest error standard is applicable to the committee’s factual findings. See In re: Caulfield, 96-1401 (La.11/25/96), 683 So.2d 714; In re: Pardue, 93-2865 (La.3/11/94), 633 So.2d 150.

We find the hearing committee’s factual findings, with the minor modifications made by the disciplinary board, are supported by the voluminous record of this matter. We further find the hearing committees correctly applied 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).

Respondent violated duties owed to his clients, the public, and the legal system. His conduct was both knowing and intentional, and caused actual harm. The applicable baseline sanction in this matter is disbarment. See In re: Boydell, 00-0086 (La.5/26/00), 760 So.2d 326.

We find there are no mitigating factors present, and numerous aggravating factors, including most notably respondent’s prior disciplinary history of similar misconduct. Respondent also refuses to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his |]7conduct. In light of these circumstances, we conclude there is no reason to deviate downward from the applicable baseline sanction.

Accordingly, we will adopt the disciplinary board’s recommendation and disbar respondent. We will further order respondent to make restitution to Mr. Polezcek as set forth in the report of the hearing committee.

DECREE

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committees and the disciplinary board, and considering the record, briefs, and oral argument, it is ordered that Arden Wells, Louisiana Bar Roll number 17900, be and he hereby is disbarred, retroactive to November 7, 2007, the date of his interim suspension. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked. It is further ordered that respondent shall pay restitution of $4,000 to Timothy Po-lezcek. 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.

       Retired Judge Philip C. Ciaccio, assigned as Justice ad hoc, sitting for Chief Justice Catherine D. Kimball.

      . The second set of formal charges, 08-DB-036, originally consisted of two counts; however, during the formal hearing, the ODC withdrew Count I. Accordingly, this report does not address Count I, and simply refers to 08-DB-036 as if it consisted of a single count.

      . Indeed, in his hearing testimony respondent admitted to being "a little skeptical” about some of the allegations made by Mr. Chaney. Nevertheless, respondent testified, he filed the affidavit into the public records in order to “preserve" it so that he could "protect” Mr. Chaney, who claimed his life was in danger.

      . In its report, the disciplinary board noted that this appeared to be "a mere oversight” by the committee. The board determined that respondent violated Rule 8.2(a) by filing a federal lawsuit which contained frivolous accusations that had no reasonable basis in fact, i.e., that Mr. Perrilloux framed respondent for extortion.

      . The committee observed that respondent "may have been angry and consumed with the issues concerning his extortion trial," but felt that did not justify his suing Ms. Sandage personally. The committee noted that perhaps respondent was motivated to escalate the litigation in order to obtain a settlement in the underlying litigation, which would benefit Mr. Peoples' friend.

      . The committee commented that respondent’s earned fee "could not exceed $1,000,” and that he therefore had a duty to refund to Mr. Polezcek at least $4,000.

      . In 1999, respondent was publicly reprimanded by the disciplinary board for filing a frivolous lawsuit in federal court against Judge AJ. Kling, the judge's secretary, and an Assistant Attorney General. Respondent alleged in the suit that his civil rights were violated by the three defendants when they caused a bench warrant to be issued for his arrest after he failed to appear at a sentencing hearing for one of his clients. After the suit was dismissed on motion of the defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, respondent was sanctioned by the federal court under Fed. Rule Civ. P. 11 for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

      . By order dated January 6, 2010, certain motions filed by respondent were referred to the merits of this proceeding. These motions are hereby denied: (1) petition for writ of mandamus directed to the Judiciary Commission; (2) special motion to strike pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 971; (3) petition for writ of mandamus directed to the administrator of the disciplinary board for the names of all persons appointed to serve on hearing committees and the names of the persons who appointed them; and (4) "Petition for Judicial Notice of Truth of Facts Alleged by the Respondent Within the Knowledge of and Not Denied by the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel, the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, and the Louisiana Supreme Court."


source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
      CIACCIO, J
     JOHNSON, Justice

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Richard HAMILTON.
    No. 2009-KK-2205.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 11, 2010.

      James D. Caldwell, Atty. Gen., Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., Dist. Atty., Nisha Sandhu, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Applicant.
    David Belfield, III, New Orleans, for Respondent.
   CIACCIO, J

[ ,We granted certiorari to determine whether evidence abandoned by defendant during his encounter with Orleans Parish Police Officers Thomas Clark and Alex Brady was the result of an unconstitutional seizure. For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the officers’ encounter with the defendant was voluntary, and Officer Brady’s instruction for the defendant to remove his hands from his pockets did not give rise to a seizure of the defendant. Therefore, we find the evidence was lawfully seized and can be used against defendant in prosecution.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On Thursday, January 17, 2008, Officers Alex Brady and Thomas Clark were monitoring the area around 2013 South Claiborne Avenue in New Orleans, due to a recent spike in batteries and robberies against Hispanic male immigrants in the area. While in their vehicle, the officers observed defendant, Richard Hamilton, walking back and forth in front of the Discount City Convenience Store. At one point, defendant paused and peered into the establishment without entering. The officers decided they wished to speak with defendant to “find out what his intentions were.” 1 ¡^According to the testimony of Officer Clark, the officers called the subject over from their vehicle, but the defendant continued to walk away. Officer Clark further testified the officers then exited their vehicle, and with no further verbal instruction to do so, defendant stopped, stuck his hands in his pockets, turned around, and began walking toward the officers

Thereafter, as a safety measure, Officer Brady instructed defendant to remove his hands from his pockets as he approached. As the defendant did so, Officer Brady instructed Officer Clark to handcuff the defendant. Officer Clark assumed this meant that Officer Brady saw the defendant drop some contraband. Officer Clark also testified that while he was searching and handcuffing the defendant, he read the defendant his Miranda rights from a card while Officer Brady retrieved a piece of tin foil from the ground, which it was later determined contained heroin. Officer Clark testified he assumed the defendant dropped the foil as he removed his hands from his pockets, but he did not personally observe this.

During a search incident to the arrest, the officers found $1,600 in cash in defendant’s socks but no more drugs. Officer Clark testified he did not get a statement from the defendant and was not privy to any statement taken from the defendant.

Defendant was charged by Bill of Information on March 19, 2008, with one count of possession of heroin with the intent to distribute. After a number of status hearings, on May, 21, 2009, the court conducted a hearing on defendant’s Motion to Suppress the heroin and his statements as the result of an unlawful seizure. Only Officer Clark was available to testify at the hearing, and the state requested the motion be kept open for Officer Brady’s testimony, but the District Court found it unnecessary and granted the defendant’s motion stating, “Court finds no probable |3cause; motion to suppress evidence granted; motion to suppress statement is granted also.” The state then gave notice of its intent to seek writs.

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal denied the writ with lengthy reasons, stating that defendant was seized for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment when he was ordered to take his hands out of his pockets and he obeyed, rendering the recovered heroin unconstitutionally seized. The state then filed a writ application with this court, and the writ was granted on January 8, 2010. State v. Hamilton, 09-2205 (La.1/8/10), 24 So.3d 855.

DISCUSSION

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Similarly, La. Const. Art. 1, Sect. 5 provides in part, “Every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy.”

In order to discourage police misconduct, any evidence recovered as a result of an unconstitutional search or seizure is inadmissible. State v. Dobard, 01-2629 (La.6/21/02), 824 So.2d 1127, 1130. Therefore, “property abandoned by an individual and recovered by the police as a direct result of an unconstitutional seizure may not be used in a subsequent prosecution.” State v. Tucker, 626 So.2d 707, 710 (La.1993). However, if evidence or property is abandoned prior to any unlawful intrusion on a citizen’s right to be free from governmental interference, then the property can be lawfully seized and used in prosecution. Id. Further, “it is only when the citizen is actually stopped without reasonable cause or when a stop without reasonable cause is imminent that the right to be left alone is violated, thereby rendering unlawful any resultant seizure of abandoned property.” Id. at 710-711 (quoting State v. Belton, 441 So.2d 1195 (La.1983)).

In State v. Fisher, this court recognized a useful three-tiered analysis of interactions between citizens and the police from United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 897 n. 1 (5th Cir.1992). In the first tier, there is no seizure or Fourth Amendment concern during mere communication with police officers and citizens where there is no coercion or detention. State v. Fisher, 97-1133 (La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 1179, 1183. The second tier consists of brief seizures of a person, under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), if the officer has an objectively reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that the person is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Fisher, 720 So.2d at 1183. The third tier is custodial arrest where an officer needs probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Id.

Within the first tier, officers have “the right to engage anyone in conversation, even without reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed a crime.” Dobard, 824 So.2d at 1130 (quoting State v. Johnson, 01-2436, p. 3 (La.1/25/02), 806 So.2d 647, 648). Further, the police do not need probable cause to arrest or reasonable suspicion to detain an individual each time they approach a citizen. Dobard, 824 So.2d at 1130. As long as the person approached by the officers remains free to disregard the encounter and walk away, there are no constitutional implications. Id. In State v. Dobard, this court stated, “It is settled that ‘law enforcement officers’ do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen .... ” 01-2629, p. 8 (La.6/21/02), 824 So.2d 1127, 1132 (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)).

| Jn adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), this court held in Tucker that an individual has been actually stopped or seized, for constitutional purposes, when he submits to a show of police authority or when he is physically contacted by the police. Tucker, 626 So.2d at 712. Further, in State v. Fisher this court stated, “A prime characteristic of any Fourth Amendment seizure of a person is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not consider himself or herself free to leave.” 720 So.2d at 1183 (quoting State v. Allen, 95-1754 (La.9/5/96), 682 So.2d 713, 719).

The relevant inquiry in this case is whether and at what point the defendant was seized for constitutional purposes. It is necessary to determine when and if defendant sufficiently submitted to an official show of police authority such that he was seized under the Fourth Amendment. Under the first tier of interaction from Fisher, the officers had every right to approach the defendant and pose some questions to him if he was willing to listen. According to Officer Clark’s uncontradict-ed testimony, the officers in this case simply called over to defendant, at which point defendant continued to walk away. Defendant obviously believed himself free to walk away, as even after being spoken to by the officers he continued on his way. Defendant’s decision to ignore the officers and continue to walk away was well within his rights as the police had asserted no authority over him. Thereafter, however, by his own decision and with no compulsion from the officers to do so, defendant stopped and turned around and began to approach the officers with his hands in his pockets.

| (At this point, out of concern for the officers’ safety, Officer Brady instructed the defendant to take his hands out of his pockets as he approached. The Court of Appeal, in its writ denial, reasoned that this instruction from Officer Brady for the defendant to remove his hands from his pockets constituted a sufficient showing of authority from the officers, to which defendant submitted by obeying and removing his hands from his pockets. The Court of Appeal reasoned this brought the encounter into the second tier of police interaction requiring reasonable suspicion. We disagree. When the defendant was voluntarily walking toward the officers with his hands in his pockets, it created a concern for the officers’ safety. The request for the defendant to remove his hands from his pockets was not coupled with any search, pat down, or intrusion into the privacy of the defendant. It was merely a reasonable, self-protective safety precaution for the officers in case the defendant who was approaching them had some sort of concealed weapon, as there had been a recent wave of violent crimes in the area. Cf. State v. Boyer, 07-0476, p. 21 (La.10/16/07), 967 So.2d 458, 471(“Officer Guillot[] was trained for the purpose of officer safety, to order persons in these situations to remove their hands from their pockets .... the defendant’s hand was not visible and a reasonably prudent person would be warranted in believing that his safety or that of others was in danger.”)

As the defendant removed his hands, Officer Brady told Officer Clark to place the defendant in handcuffs. Officer Clark testified that Officer Brady observed the defendant drop contraband as he was removing his hands from his pocket. While Officer Clark detained the defendant, Officer Brady retrieved the packet of foil, which was later determined to contain heroin. As the encounter was still voluntary under the first tier of police interaction and as the police officers were reasonable in requesting the defendant to remove his hands from his pockets as a safety measure, 17the contraband was abandoned prior to any unlawful intrusion into the defendant’s right of freedom from governmental interference. As such, it was subject to lawful seizure.

Similarly, in State v. Jackson, this court held recovered cocaine was legally seized after the defendant discarded his cocaine packet, even after police officers positioned themselves to stop him, approached the defendant, and identified themselves as police officers, because he discarded the cocaine before the officers acted to effectuate their subjective intent to stop him. 00-3083, p. 4 (La.3/15/02), 824 So.2d 1124, 1126-27. The court stated, “by merely identifying themselves as the police, before they asked respondent any questions, drew their weapons, or otherwise asserted their official authority over him, the officers had not yet ‘seized’ the respondent.” Id. at 1126. Also, in State v. Johnson, this court held no stop or seizure occurred and evidence was legally seized where officers parked their police car four to five feet from the defendant, at which time defendant threw down a bag later determined to be heroin. 01-2436 (La.1/25/02), 806 So.2d 647. The court in Johnson stated the officers “had not yet indicated by word or action that an actual stop, i. e., a forcible detention, or seizure of the person was about to take place.” Id. at 648. Also, in State v. Britton, 633 So.2d 1208, 1209 (La.1994), this court held the seizure of cocaine constitutional, after police followed the defendant into a gas station and were no more than one or two feet from defendant when he discarded the cocaine on a store shelf, reasoning that the officers “did not forcibly detain him, or make a show of their authority signalling [sic] that some form of official detention was imminent, until after he discarded the packet of cocaine.”

|8In the present case, defendant was approaching the officers voluntarily with his hands in his pocket, and discarded the cocaine before the police showed any intent to seize him. After the defendant exercised his right to ignore the police officers, he voluntarily changed his mind and began walking toward the officers with concealed hands. The only intent communicated was for the defendant to take his hands out of his pockets out of concern for the officers’ safety in having an individual approaching them with concealed hands. The instruction did not indicate any intent to detain, search, or seize the defendant. Thus, the instruction did not constitute an actual stop or seizure, making the subsequently abandoned contraband lawfully subject to police seizure.

In sum, defendant’s encounter with the two officers was voluntary and did not intrude into his privacy. Their instruction to remove his hands from his pockets was based on concerns for officer safety and did not communicate an intent to stop, seize, or search the defendant. Prior to his abandoning the foil, the defendant was neither seized nor stopped, a fact that made the package legally recoverable by the officers.

For the above reasons, we find the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s Motion to Suppress the heroin and the statements made after the arrest. The ruling of the trial court is hereby reversed.

REVERSED.

JOHNSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

JOHNSON, Justice

dissenting.

hThe trial court is afforded great discretion in ruling on a motion to suppress, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Lee, 05-2098 (La.1/16/08), 976 So.2d 109, 122. For the reasons articulated by the court of appeal in its writ denial, I find no error in the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress.

       Retired Judge Philip C. Ciaccio, assigned as Justice ad hoc, sitting for Chief Justice Catherine D. Kimball.

      . Absent a showing of police authority, "the individual ‘need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way.' " State v. Lewis, 00-3136, p. 4 (La.4/26/02), 815 So.2d 818, 820-821 (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)).

      . See State v. Andrishok, 434 So.2d 389, 391 (La.1983). ("[Evidence discarded or abandoned] without any prior unlawful intrusion into a citizen’s right of freedom from governmental interference ... may be lawfully seized.”)


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    Zaidra Ardith GRIMES, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Child, Zavian S. Walker, and Paul W. Walker, v. LOUISIANA MEDICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Karen Kay Solar, M.D.; Timothy George Andrus, M.D.; and Woman’s Hospital of Baton Rouge/Woman’s Hospital Foundation.
    No. 2010-C-0039.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   PER CURIAM.

| finding the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognize and address the effect of Nunez v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 00-3062 (La.2/16/01), 780 So.2d 348, to the facts of this case and in reversing the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against Woman’s Hospital, we grant this writ for the limited purpose of clarifying the proper effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

On January 19, 2003, Zaidra Grimes was admitted to Woman’s Hospital in labor under the care of obstetrician/gynecologist Dr. Karen Solar. During the course of delivery, a shoulder dystocia complication arose when the baby’s shoulder became lodged on Ms. Grimes’s pubic bone. Ms. Grimes underwent the McRobert’s maneuver with suprapubic pressure applied, and a baby girl, Zavian Walker, was born. It was later determined Zavian suffered a brachial plexus injury during delivery.

Subsequently, Ms. Grimes, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Zavian, and Paul Walker, Zavian’s father (collectively plaintiffs), filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Solar, Woman’s Hospital, and Dr. Timothy George |2Andrus, the obstetrician/gynecologist, who oversaw Ms. Grimes’s prenatal care. The medical review panel found no breach of the appropriate standard of care by either physician or Woman’s Hospital. Thereafter, on January 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed the instant malpractice suit against Dr. Solar, Dr. Andrus, Woman’s Hospital, and Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company (LAMMICO). On February 28, 2007, Woman’s Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing liability under the law of respondeat superior should not attach to the hospital for any negligence at issue because the nurses employed by the hospital, who aided in the delivery, were under the immediate supervision and control of Dr. Solar, as opposed to the hospital itself. The District Court granted the motion, from which judgment only co-defendants, Dr. Solar, Dr. Andrus, and LAMMICO, appealed. Plaintiffs did not answer the appeal. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit reversed, finding the “dual employer” doctrine attached liability to both the supervising physician, Dr. Solar, as well as the general employer of the nurses, Woman’s Hospital. Grimes v. Louisiana Medical Mut. Ins. Co., 09-0292 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09), 29 So.3d 505.

Woman’s Hospital now seeks review in this Court, contending plaintiffs’ failure to appeal the initial summary judgment limits the effect of the subsequent appellate judgment such that it may operate only for the benefit of its co-defendants, who actually appealed, and not for the benefit of the plaintiffs, who failed to appeal and, consequently, allowed summary judgment to become final as between themselves and Woman’s Hospital. In opposition, the co-defendants request the trier of fact ultimately be permitted to allocate fault against Woman’s Hospital.

In Nunez, this Court held “[w]hen a judgment dismisses one of several cumu-lated claims by the plaintiff, the plaintiff must appeal that adverse judgment to obtain affirmative relief.” 00-3062 at p. 1, 780 So.2d at 349. Consequently, the | ¿judgment of dismissal acquires the authority of a thing adjudged when the plaintiff fails to appeal the dismissal of his action. Id. at p. 2, 780 So.2d at 349. In such eases, the filing of an appeal from the judgment of the trial court by another party only brings “up on appeal the portions of the judgment that were adverse to [that party],” but not “the portions of the judgment that were adverse to plaintiffs.” Id. at p. 2, 780 So.2d at 349.

In the present case, when plaintiffs failed to appeal or answer the appeal, the summary judgment dismissing Woman’s Hospital acquired the authority of a thing adjudged and is now final between the parties. Therefore, the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against Woman’s Hospital.

Nevertheless, the co-defendants’ filing of an appeal from the summary judgment “brought up on appeal the portions of the judgment that were adverse to [them].” See Nunez, 00-3062 at p. 2, 780 So.2d at 349. While Woman’s Hospital cannot be cast in judgment, these defendants, if they are able to prove the fault of the hospital’s employees/nurses, are still entitled to a reduction in judgment by the percentage of fault allocated to the hospital in accordance with the general principles of comparative fault set forth in La. Civ.Code art. 2323(A).

Accordingly, we amend the Court of Appeal’s judgment to delete any language reversing the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against Woman’s Hospital and affirm the judgment as amended.

AMENDED and AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

       Kimball, C.J., did not participate in the deliberation of this opinion.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ernest BLACKMAN.
    No. 2010-KK-1010.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2010.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 493-991; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0645.

Granted in part with order. The trial court is ordered to conduct an in camera inspection of the report at issue to determine whether the defendants are entitled to any evidence under La.Code Crim. Proc. art. 718.


text:
    In re Michael J. RILEY, Sr.
    No. 2010-OB-1061.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2010.
   In re Riley Sr., Michael J.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Relief From Interlocutory Order In 09-DB-037 Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, No. 09-DB-037.

Denied.


text:
    Charles MITCHELL, James Mitchell and Barbara Mitchell v. SOUTHERN SCRAP RECYCLING, L.L.C.; Southern Scrap Material Co., L.L.C; Southern Scrap Recycling Morgan City, L.L.C. And ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-CC-1089.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2010.
   In re Gemini Insurance Company;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 155217; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 2215.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bobby Dean HIGGINBOTHAM.
    No. 2010-KK-1144.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2010.
   In re Higginbotham, Bobby Dean;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tensas, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 79,152; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,722-KW.

Stay Denied; Writ Denied.


text:
    Renee Michelle HARANG v. Jimmy PONDER.
    No. 2010-CJ-0926.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 19, 2010.
   In re Harang, Renee Michelle;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 105397; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CU 2182.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Jonathon GUILLORY v. PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INS., et al.
    No. 2010-OC-0428.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re American Home Assurance Co.;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calca-sieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2006-1743; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 09-1056, 09-1508.

Granted. Applying the factors in Messinger v. Rosenblum, 04-1664 (La.3/2/05), 894 So.2d 1113, we find the trial court did not err in certifying the partial summary judgment as final for purposes of an immediate appeal. Accordingly, relator’s appeal is reinstated. The case is remanded to court of appeal for further proceedings.


text:
    The BANK OF NEW YORK, Acting Solely in its Capacity as Trustee for EQCC Trust 2001-2 v. Kathleen Johnson PARNELL.
    No. 2010-C-0435.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Bank of New York Trustee for EQCC Trust 2001-2;—Plaintiffs; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 606-473; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-CA-439.

Granted.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    Charles DUPREE v. LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    No. 2009-C-2602.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Lafayette Insurance Company;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 105-521; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0321.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie Joe BROOKS, Jr.
    No. 2009-K-2323.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 41-029; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,-730-KA.

Granted.


text:
    In re APPEAL OF DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 09-PDB-046.
    No. 2010-OB-0141.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Flemon, Ethel Y; Wright, Linda F.;—Plaintiff(s); Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of the Disciplinary Board, No. 09-PDB-046.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Theodore RATCLIFF v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1298.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Ratcliff, Theodore;—Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 5, 2010; Parish of Orleans District Court Div. G, Nos. 274-566, 207-523.

Denied.


text:
    In re APPEAL OF the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 09-PDB-023.
    No. 2009-OB-2358.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Pottharst, Russell C;—Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 26, 2010; Office of Disciplinary Board No. 09-PDB-023.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cecil POUNCEY, III.
    No. 2009-KO-1691.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Pouncey III, Cecil;—Defendant; Applying For .Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 439232; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0075.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Calvin Lee CRADDOCK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1693.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Craddock, Calvin Lee;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 397650; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0415.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Raymond Michael SUTTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1694.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Sutton, Raymond Michael;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 04-15893; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-00149.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Anthony D. TEZENO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1695.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Tezeno, Anthony D.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 73109-FA, 73110-FA; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-00386.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles LEE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1697.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Lee, Charles;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 91-26936; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-00486.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 351.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald JENKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1699.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Jenkins, Ronald;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 35,348-C.

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. Phillip MONROE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1708.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Monroe, Phillip;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 396-407; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0763.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph GARY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1709.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Gary, Joseph;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, Nos. 174-076, 174-055.

Denied. See La. R.S. 44:35(A); see also State ex rel. Shelton v. State, 00-1901 (La.9/14/01), 796 So.2d 672; State ex rel. McKnight v. State, 98-2258 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/03/98), 742 So.2d 894.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Walter MARCHAND v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1711.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Marchand, Walter;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 09-99-0548; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0397.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Quitman NELSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1747.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Nelson, Quitman;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, , Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 426-891; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0787.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Anthony C. PITRE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1751.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Pitre, Anthony C;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 99-966; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No KH 09-00056.

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. Carlwynn TURNER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1752.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Turner, Carlwynn;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 12-88-0102; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0538.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph LAWSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1753.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Lawson, Joseph;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 271-110.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Edward Aaron LOWERY, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1754.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Lowery, Edward A.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 87-3131; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-KH-412, 09-KH-418.

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. Lloyd BONE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1756.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Bone, Lloyd;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 72-75.

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. Richard John MIKKELSON, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1757.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Mikkelson Jr., Richard John;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 173-545.

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. Leonard McGEE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1758.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re McGee, Leonard;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 04-364; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-916.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roderick L. GRIFFIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1901.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Griffin, Roderick L.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 413834; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0721.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Orlando I. LANE.
    No. 2009-K-2360.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 06-5661; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-179.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Peter WEBB, Jr.
    No. 2009-K-2486.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Webb Jr., Peter;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 07-CR-481; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0720.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Roderick L. GRIFFIN.
    No. 2009-K-2520.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Griffin, Roderick L.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 413834; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0721.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charles HARRIS.
    No. 2009-K-2528.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Harris, Charles;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 39988; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,613-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cesar Adolfo PALACIO.
    No. 2009-K-2530.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Palcacio, Cesar Adolfo;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 423,740; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0003.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eric G. BRISTER.
    No. 2009-KO-2570.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Brister, Eric G.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 04-CR7-90993; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0655.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Herman Paul BELLA.
    No. 2009-KO-2571.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Bella, Herman Paul;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 477,341; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009-KA-0750.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Karl FORTENBERRY.
    No. 2009-KO-2573.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Fortenberry, Karl Christopher;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 407864; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0504.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tory LANDRY.
    No. 2009-K-2577.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Landry, Tory;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 05-001020; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-260.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Corey Dewayne ANDERSON.
    No. 2009-KO-2596.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Anderson, Corey Dewayne;-Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 06-523; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-105.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. L.H., Jr.
    No. 2009-K-2642.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re L.H. Jr.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 281,969; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-27.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Daryl W. JOHNSON.
    No. 2009-K-2643.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Johnson, Daryl W.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C11959; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-231.

Denied.


text:
    In re APPEAL OF DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 2007-ADMIN-83.
    No. 2010-OB-0184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Joseph Jr., Warren E.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of the Disciplinary Board, No. 2007-ADMIN-83.

Denied.


text:
    Trashanda WILLIAMS, et al. v. SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-0318.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Leblanc, Dwayne; Safeway Insurance Co. of Louisiana et al;- — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 79661; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-01448.

Denied.


text:
    Kenneth DeMARCO v. DAVID BRIGGS ENTERPRISES, INC.
    No. 2010-C-0330.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re David Briggs Enterprises Inc. et al.; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.;—Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Worker’s Compensation, District 8, No. 08-5500; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0615.

Denied.


text:
    PORT SHIP SERVICE, INC. v. ELLSWORTH CORPORATION, et al. Port Ship Service, Inc. v. Ellsworth Corporation, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-0377.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 107-479; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2009-C-1163, 2009-C-1271.

Denied.


text:
    GULF COAST MINERAL, LLC v. Robert GROTHAUS.
    No. 2010-C-0431.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Gulf Coast Mineral L.L.C.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 113347-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-685.

Denied.


text:
    James and Rebecca WALLACE v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION.
    No. 2010-CC-0450.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 52-975; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-1650.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    MURPHY CORMIER GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HOSPITALS, Office Of Public Health, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-0569.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Department of Health & Hospitals; Louisiana State of, et al.; Office of Public Health;—Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2007-003828; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-01194.

Denied.


text:
    Donald DOMINIO v. The FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, XYZ Insurance Company, ABC Individually and DEF.
    No. 2010-C-0570.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re T.T.C. Illinois Inc.; Dominio, Donald;—Other(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 94-9496; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-1278.

Denied. Motion To dismiss application is denied.


text:
    WHOLESALE PRINTABLES v. LOGO EXPRESS MARKETING, INC. and Raju R. Sadhwani.
    No. 2010-C-0571.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Logo Express Marketing Inc. et al.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 636-698; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-CA-880.

Denied.


text:
    Michael Patrick REESBY v. Grant Fernand BOURGERE.
    No. 2010-CC-0574.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Bourgere, Grant Fernand;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 501,421; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 2037.

Denied.


text:
    Charles GLISAN, et ux. v. Michael EATON, et ux.
    No. 2010-C-0578.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Glisan et ux., Charles; Glisan, Amy;—Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 233-854; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 09-758.

Denied.


text:
    Becky Fallon LIEMANN v. Henry E. FALLON, III, Kenneth M. Fallon, Nancy Fallon Nelson, Jim T. Fallon and Jean T. Fallon Hendricks.
    No. 2010-CC-0580.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Liemann, Becky Fallon;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2009-11258; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 2064.

Denied.


text:
    Paul CORDES and Paulette Hurdlik v. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AND AUDUBON, LLC.
    No. 2010-C-0584.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Cordes, Paul; Hurdlik, Paulette;—Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, No. 04-14706; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0976.

Denied.


text:
    Jennie WALDROP v. THREE FORTY THREE OAKS, LTD., Oaks of Kingsbridge Apartments, Gil Bratten, Steve Bratten, Cableworks, Incorporated, A & H Cable TV Construction, Inc., and Bladmir Antonio “Tony” Orozco.
    No. 2010-C-0591.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re A & H Cable TV Construction Inc.; Alvarez d/b/a, Rigoberto; Hernandez, Israel; Penn America Insurance Company;—Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 548,285; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1333.

Denied.


text:
    Catherine COOK v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION, LTD., et al.
    No. 2010-CC-0621.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re HSBC Bank, PLC;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 09-9598; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0224.

Denied.


text:
    John WELLS, Janice Wells v. Gary KNIGHT, Veterans for Lamz.
    No. 2010-C-0630.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Wells, Janice; Wells, John et al.;—Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2004-15207; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0705.

Denied.


text:
    Bennie PATTERSON v. BIG DAWG’S LOUNGE.
    No. 2010-CC-0631.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Patterson, Bennie;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 7, No. 08-1848; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-85.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jessie MOORE a/k/a Damien Varease v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0946.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Moore, Jessie;-Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 03-09-0161; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0436.

Denied.


text:
    Justin G. WILKEWITZ and Kelly Wilkewitz v. COBURN SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Custom Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., Willie the Roofer, Inc., David Vidrine and Trey Berlin and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-CC-0632.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Berlin, Trey; Coburn Supply Company Inc. et al.; Vidrine, David;—Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 578,702; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 2317.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    PORT SHIP SERVICE, INC. v. ELLSWORTH CORPORATION, et al. Port Ship Service, Inc. v. Ellsworth Corporation, et al.
    No. 2010-CC-0795.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re Dunn, Marcus; Ellsworth Corporation;—Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 107-479; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2009-C-1163, 2009-C-1271.

Denied.


text:
    Nelson P. DALY, D.D.S., Nelson P. Daly Realty, L.L.C., Aimee Russo-Mounger D.D.S., Dr. Aimee Russo-Mounger Inc., Tom E. Foster, D.D.S., Tef Blubonnett Properties, L.L.C., and Smile of Baton Rouge Office Condominiums, Inc. v. DUPREE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Carubba Engineering, Inc., Post-Tension Slabs, Inc., Cress and Lopresto Architects, L.L.C.
    No. 2010-CC-0628.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re North American Specialty Insurance Company;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 555,879; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 2283.

Denied.


text:
    MALONEY CINQUE, L.L.C., et al. v. PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., et al.
    No. 2010-CC-1164.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 21, 2010.
   In re E.B. Ducasse Insurance Agency Inc.; Utica Mutual Insurance Company;—Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2006-7842; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0518.

Stay denied; writ denied. Defendants will have an adequate remedy on appeal. In addition, once the court of appeal denied the writ, any additional remarks or findings are not binding. See Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc., 02-1035 (La.6/14/02), 817 So.2d 1149.


text:
    STATE in the Interest of L.W.
    No. 2010-CK-1189.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2010.
   In re L.W. State in Interest of;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans — , Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2010-137-03 DQ C; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0726.

Denied.


text:
    In re James Ogden MIDDLETON, II.
    No. 2010-OB-1070.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2010.
   In re Disciplinary Counsel;—Other; Applying For Application for Supervisory Writs Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 06-DB-078 C/W 09-DB-007.

Denied.


text:
    Sidney S. WHITTEN v. Sarah RAY.
    No. 2010-CJ-1055.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 26, 2010.
   In re Ray, Sarah;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 65326; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00186.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dane DELARGE.
    No. 2010-KK-1212.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 27, 2010.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. O, No. 496-710; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0742.

Granted. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the trial court is ordered to grant the State a reasonable eontinu-anee so that the State can secure the appearance of its chief witness.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Travis RICHARDSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0341.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Richardson, Travis;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 10-02-00394; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2246.

Application dismissed at relator’s request.


text:
    In re Curklin ATKINS.
    No. 2010-OB-0527.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Disciplinary Counsel;—Other; Applying For Findings and Recommendations (Reinstatement) Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 09-DB-034.

Reinstatement denied. Respondent may not reapply for reinstatement until at least three (3) years have passed from the date of this judgment. Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 24(1).

JOHNSON, J., would admit conditionally for reasons expressed by hearing committee member, Henry.


text:
    Suresh JARIWALA v. Kishor MADRASI.
    No. 2010-C-0060.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Madrasi, Kishor;—Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 26, 2010; Parish of St. Landry, 27th District Court Div. C, No. 08-C-3561-B; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08 01522-CA.

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


text:
    Wilbert McCLAY, M.D. v. Valeria PRICE and Walter Krousel, III.
    No. 2010-CC-0074.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re McClay, M.D., Wilbert;—Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this court’s action dated April 9, 2010, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge City Court, No. 0702-01499; 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 572,908; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 1165.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Richard Alan DARBY. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1457.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Darby, Richard Alan;—Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 9, 2010; Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 31-987; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,646-KH.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Milton WILSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1470.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   IN RE:—Wilson, Milton;—Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 9, 2010; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 31-987; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0020.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charles K. WALLACE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1479.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Wallace, Charles K.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated April 16, 2010; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 194255; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0273.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Elliot J. JENKINS, Charles E. Jenkins and Patrick Holden v. Sam B. HAYNES, Jr. d/b/a Haynes Motor Lines, Joe Doe and Legion Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-0068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Holden, Patrick; Jenkins, Charles E.; Jenkins, Elliot J. et al.;—Plaintiffs; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 26, 2010; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2000-11646; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-0783.

Denied.


text:
    In re John T. SCOTT.
    No. 2009-B-2364.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Scott, John T.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s order dated April 5, 2010; Office of Disciplinary Board No. 08-DB-077.

Rehearing denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant rehearing.


text:
    Yvonne NEWSOME v. HOMER MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al. Health Center.
    No. 2010-CC-0564.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Newsome, Yvonne;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Rehearing of this Courts order dated April 9, 2010, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 38,562; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 45,475-CW.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Norris A. PALMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1538.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Palms, Norris A.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 17914-00; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-553.

Denied.


text:
    STATE EX REL. Jackie FONTENOT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1554.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Fontenot, Jackie;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR512-2005; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 08-01558.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerome FRENCH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1755.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re French, Jerome;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 440-494; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 09-K-0729.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Earl BOWDEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1759.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Bowden, Earl;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 395-458; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0758.

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. Kenneth SIMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1763.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Sims, Kenneth;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 87-CR-445; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2009 KA 0503, 2009 KW 0524.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kenny A. DYER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1764.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Dyer, Kenny A.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 04-09-0186; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1007.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert T. YOUNG, JR. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1765.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Young Jr., Robert T.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 40,823; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0519.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald RATLIFF v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1767.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Ratliff, Ronald;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 393-518; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0691.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gregory DAVID v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1768.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re David, Gregory;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 496-97; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0533.

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

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1769.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Johnson, Joseph;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 332-360; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0732.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jason S. WENK v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1770.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Wenk, Jason S.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 246,188; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,-840-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roderick K. GODBOLT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1771.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Godbolt, Roderick K.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 04-CR5-89607; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 2599.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dale LECHUGA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-1773.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Lechuga, Dale;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 07-6086, 07-6087; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-429.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony Mark MANDIGO.
    No. 2009-KO-2287.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Mandigo, Anthony Mark;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 266,965; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,698-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony Mark MANDIGO.
    No. 2009-K-2366.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Mandigo, Anthony Mark;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 266,965; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,698-KA.

Denied.


text:
    Dale LECHUGA v. Jim ROGERS, Warden.
    No. 2009-KH-2437.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Lechuga, Dale;—Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 07-6086, 07-6087; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-698.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jamal ZEIDAN.
    No. 2009-KP-2582.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana..
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Zeidan, Jamal;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 265,248; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45059-KW.

Denied.

KNOLL and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donna Kay SEPULVADO.
    No. 2009-K-2590.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Sepulvado, Donna Kay;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 06-CR-013494, 08-CR-017410; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 44,763-KA, 44,764-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michelle MARTORANA.
    No. 2009-KO-2656.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Martorana, Michelle;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 158148; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No 44,-863-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jermaine M. WELCH.
    No. 2009-KO-2662.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Welch, Jermaine M.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 07-3380; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-138.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony T. FONTENBERRY.
    No. 2009-KO-2665.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Fontenberry, Anthony T.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 05-6461; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-127.

Denied.


text:
    Gladys RICKS v. CITY OF MONROE, Monroe Transit Authority.
    No. 2010-C-0391.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Ricks, Gladys;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 02-4903-2; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,811-CA.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Leon LOVETT.
    No. 2010-C-0565.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Lovett, Victor Executor;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 8765; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 1402.

Denied.


text:
    Philip SMITH, et al. v. UNIVERSITY ANIMAL CLINIC, INC.
    No. 2010-C-0566.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re University Animal Clinic, Inc.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, Lake Charles City Court, No. 08-829; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 09-745.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jack WALKER.
    No. 2010-KK-0640.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Walker, Jack;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 09-07-0092; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2216.

Denied.


text:
    Cynthia BRIDGES, Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. Thomas R. GALLOWAY, Sr. and Connie T. Galloway.
    No. 2010-CC-0642.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Galloway Sr., Thomas R. et al.; Galloway, Connie T.;—Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 496-000; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 2126.

Denied.


text:
    Dorothy BILLINGSLEY, Individually and on Behalf of Deceased Husband, Steven Billingsley v. Thomas E. LAVIN, M.D., The Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund, and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-CC-0651.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Louisiana Patients’ Compensation Fund;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2004-12270; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 2148.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Ira Clifton Sharp. Priscilla S. Sharp v. Ira C. SHARP. Priscilla Sharp, On Behalf of Richard Sharp v. Alma Kennedy.
    No. 2010-OC-0652.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Kennedy, Alma Sharp;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 92-11868, 2004-12660, 2004-30358 & C/W, 2004-30353; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2009 CA 1500, 2009 CA 1501, 2009 CA 1502, 2009 CA 1503, 2009 CA 1504, 2009 CA 1505.

Denied.


text:
    SHIH CHANG HU v. EVERGREEN OF THE SOUTH, d/b/a Taste of China Restaurant and Yi Hua and Fang Hua.
    No. 2010-CC-0653.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Hua, Fang;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 562,149; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 0044.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Danny Paul FADLER.
    No. 2010-CC-0655.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Fadler, June Wall;—Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2006-901358; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-01211.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    Mendy PROPERTIES, LC v. TOURO INFIRMARY.
    No. 2010-CC-0666.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Touro Infirmary;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 2008-11599; to the. Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-0083.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Willie Faye FOX v. REYNOLDS INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS.
    No. 2010-C-0676.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Fox, Willie Faye;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 1W, Nos. 07-05431, 01-08640; to. the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 44,938-WCA, 44,939-WCA.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Lorraine Zenobia WILLIAMS, On behalf of the Interdict, Floyd Williams v. Sheriff Wayne L. JONES, St. John the Baptist Parish Sheriff's Office, St. John the Baptist Parish Correctional Center, Warden Philip Hebert and ABC Insurance Companies.
    No. 2010-C-0677.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Williams, Lorraine Zenobia et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 53597; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-CA-839.

Denied.


text:
    Michelle Thornton BROWN, Wife of/and Earl Brown v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY and Lastrapes Insurance Agency.
    No. 2010-CC-0679.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Lexington Insurance Company;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 06-8991; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-1496.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    Theresa Pruitt Yaeger CHEEKS, Wife of/and Alton B. Cheeks v. Dr. Daniel MOMPOINT, Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company, Ochsner Medical Center Westbank and ABC Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-CC-0683.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co.;—Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 657-699; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-84.

Denied.


text:
    Daisy J. PALMER, et al. v. ZULU SOCIAL AID AND PLEASURE CLUB, INC., et al.
    No. 2010-C-0688.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Palmer, Daisy J. et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, No. 06-12160; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-0751.

Denied.


text:
    Mary F. HATTAWAY v. HEALTH PARADIGM, LLC and Ruston Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Inc.
    No. 2010-C-0691.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Ruston Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Inc.;—Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lincoln, Ruston City Court, No. 37243; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-047-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Jeffrey BELTON v. Ann R. BAEHR, Troy G. Broussard, Troy G. Broussard, J. D., A Professional Law Corporation, and Dr. Richard Bucci.
    No. 2010-C-0699.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 28, 2010.
   In re Baehr, Ann R.; Broussard, Troy G.; Troy G. Broussard, J.D. A Professional Law Corp.;—Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 625-961; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-CA-342.

Denied.