from the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Caddo, Louisiana Lower Court Case No. 571, 448 Honorable
Ramon Lafitte, Judge
LAW OFFICE, LLC By: S.P. Davis, Sr. Kharmen Davis Counsel for
RICHIE, RICHIE & OBERLE, LLP By: Byron A. Richie Charles
Vernon Richie Paul D. Oberle, Jr. Patrick W. Woolbert Counsel
DREW, MOORE, and COX, JJ.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ...