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.

Patrick v. J. Patrick, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

November 1, 2017

RICKY PATRICK, BY AND THROUGH GLENN PATRICK HIS AGENT
v.
J. PATRICK, INC. MACHINE, PUMP & FABRICATION, MELISA PATRICK AND DALE PATRICK

         On Appeal from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of West Baton Rouge State of Louisiana No. 41, 821 Honorable, Robert Downing, Ad Hoc Judge Presiding

          John F. Jakuback Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Ricky Patrick, By and Through Glenn Patrick His Agent William L. Caughman, III Michael J. deBarros R. Devin Ricci Baton Rouge, LA

          John B. Brumfield, Jr. Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendants/ Appellants J. Patrick, Inc., Machine, Pump & Fabrication, Melisa Patrick and Dale Patrick

          BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.

          MCCLENDON, J.

         In this appeal, the defendants contest a trial court judgment that found them in contempt of court for failing to turn over certain business records to the plaintiff, a shareholder of the defendant corporation. The judgment also ordered that the defendants allow the plaintiff's counsel and expert to enter onto the defendant corporation's premises to review its business records. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         This matter arises out of and is a continuation of a fight for control of a family-held corporation that has resulted in the filing of multiple lawsuits, several of which have been before this Court. With regard to this latest suit, on November 7, 2014, the plaintiff, Ricky Patrick, by and through his agent, Glenn Patrick, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against J. Patrick, Inc., Machine, Pump & Fabrication (J. Patrick Machine), Melisa Patrick, and Dale Patrick, alleging that he sought to examine, as a shareholder of J. Patrick Machine, through his certified public accountant, the corporate records of J. Patrick Marine, and that the defendants not only refused to provide the requested records, but threatened the plaintiff with arrest should he set foot on the premises of J. Patrick Marine. The plaintiff therefore requested that a writ of mandamus issue requiring the defendants to allow the plaintiff and/or his agents to inspect all books and records of J. Patrick Machine.

         After the judges of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court recused themselves, an ad hoc judge was appointed to handle the matter. Following a hearing on July 13, 2015, the trial court signed a Stipulated Judgment on Petition for Writ of Mandamus on August 11, 2015, wherein the plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus was granted and the defendants were ordered to provide the requested information. Additionally, the trial court limited disclosure of the records to plaintiff's counsel and expert.

         Thereafter, on September 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to hold the defendants in contempt of court for failing to comply with the court's order and requesting penalties until they complied with the order. According to the plaintiff, on September 3, 2015, counsel for the defendants provided a CD with the records listed in his letter of that date, but that, while some of the corporate records of J. Patrick Machine were provided, none of the financial records of the company were provided.

         At the hearing on the motion for contempt, held on November 30, 2015, the parties entered into another stipulation. This stipulation was on the record and read in open court, in which the defendants agreed to produce the requested financial records, including "electronic files such as Quickbooks wherever those records are available." Thereafter, the defendants did produce some records, but rather than providing the electronic files, they exported the information into an Excel spreadsheet, which the plaintiff contends eliminates the ability of the plaintiff's accountants to confirm the veracity of the information contained in the records.

         After requesting the records in electronic format on two occasions and receiving no response from the defendants, the plaintiff filed a second motion for contempt on April 4, 2016. The hearing on the second motion for contempt was held on July 27, 2016, and the trial court again ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court signed a judgment on August 19, 2016, granting the plaintiff's motion and finding the defendants in contempt of the court's prior orders. The judgment also provided that the plaintiff was entitled to copy and inspect all QuickBooks files of J. Patrick Machine and that the plaintiff's counsel and expert could enter the business premises and copy all QuickBooks files of J. Patrick Machine in their native electronic format. The defendants were also assessed attorney fees in the amount of $500.00 plus the costs of filing the second motion for contempt. Lastly, the trial court limited disclosure of the records to counsel for the parties and the plaintiff's expert.

         The defendants suspensively appealed and assert the following as error:

1. The trial court was manifestly erroneous and clearly wrong in finding 1 Patrick Machine ...

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.