Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Franklin v. Dick

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

June 21, 2017

RAYNETTA FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GARY DICK, KENNETH CRAWFORD, ACE CAB, L.L.C., D/BA YELLOW CHECKER CAB AND ITS INSURED, IMPERIAL FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellees

         Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Lower Court Case No. 571, 448 Honorable Ramon Lafitte, Judge

          DAVIS LAW OFFICE, LLC By: S.P. Davis, Sr. Kharmen Davis Counsel for Appellant

          RICHIE, RICHIE & OBERLE, LLP By: Byron A. Richie Charles Vernon Richie Paul D. Oberle, Jr. Patrick W. Woolbert Counsel for Appellees

          Before DREW, MOORE, and COX, JJ.

          DREW, J.

         Raynetta Franklin appeals a partial summary judgment granted in favor of Kenneth Crawford and Ace Cab, L.L.C d/b/a Yellow Checker Cab. We affirm.

         FACTS

         On January 29, 2013, a motor vehicle driven by Gary Dick, a cab driver, was involved in a collision with a vehicle being driven by John Reiz at the intersection of Stoner Avenue and Creswell Street in Shreveport, Louisiana. Raynetta Franklin was a passenger in the cab driven by Dick, and she sustained injuries in the accident, which have required surgery. Dick leased the taxicab from Crawford and Yellow Checker Cab Company ("the Cab Company") each day for $85. Dick kept all of the proceeds that he earned. Crawford and the Cab Company earned the same $85 each day regardless of how much money Dick earned.

         The original petition was filed on September 18, 2013, by Raynetta Franklin, naming Gary Dick, Kenneth Crawford, Ace Cab, L.L.C., d/b/a Yellow Checker Cab Company, and Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company as defendants.

         On June 2, 2016, Crawford filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the relationship between Crawford and the Cab Company and Dick and that there was no employer/employee relationship.

         On August 22, 2016, following oral argument by all parties, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against Crawford and the Cab Company. Franklin appealed.

         DISCUSSION

         Summary judgments are reviewed de novo using the same criteria that govern the district court's consideration of whether a summary judgment should be granted. Richard v. Hall, 2003-1488 (La. 4/23/04), 874 So.2d 131; Capital One Bank (USA) NA v. Thompson, 47, 994 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/15/13), 115 So.3d 704. We view the record and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hines v. Garrett, 2004-0806 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764, rehearing denied, 2004-0806 (La. 9/24/04), 882 So.2d 1134. The judge considering a motion for summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter; rather, the judge's role is to determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. Id.

         The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proof. La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). However, if the moving party will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter at issue on summary judgment, then the movant is merely required to point out an absence of factual support for one or more essential elements of the adverse party's claim. Id. If the adverse party then fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.