Kailash K. Dhaliwal and The Succession of Manmohan S. Dhaliwal Plaintiffs-Appellees
Karminderdal S. Dhaliwal and Dhillon Sookam Defendants-Appellees Robert A. Lee and Sedric E. Banks Plaintiffs-Appellees
Kailash Dhaliwal, Karl Dhaliwal and Sookham Dhaliwal Defendants-Appellees
Appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court Nos. 2011-0429,
2010-4412 and 2014-2600 Honorable Alvin R. Sharp, Judge
LAW FIRM By: Mark J. Neal Counsel for Intervenor/ Appellant,
Mahinderpal S. Dhaliwal JAY NOLEN
HUDSON, POTTS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P. By: Margaret H. Pruitt
Counsel for Appellees, Succession of Manmohan Singh Dhaliwal
and Kailash K. Dhaliwal
ERSKINE, LLP By: Robert L. Garner Counsel for Appellees,
Karminderdal S. Dhaliwal and Dhillon Sookham Dhaliwal
E. BANKS In Proper Person
A. LEE In Proper Person
WILLIAMS, PITMAN, and COX, JJ.
Mahinderpal Singh Dhaliwal appeals the trial court's
granting of a motion to dismiss filed by the Succession of
Manmohan Dhaliwal. For the following reasons, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
the third time this matter has been before this court.
See Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal, 48, 034 (La.App. 2 Cir.
9/11/13), 124 So.3d 470, writ denied, 13-2931 (La.
2/21/14), 134 So.3d 1165 ("Dhaliwal I"),
and Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal, 49, 973 (La.App. 2 Cir.
11/25/15), 184 So.3d 773, writ denied, 16-0236 (La.
4/4/16), 190 So.3d 1204 ("Dhaliwal II").
instant consolidated cases involve members of the Dhaliwal
family. Manmohan S. Dhaliwal ("Manmohan") and his
wife Kailash K. Dhaliwal ("Kailash") had two sons,
Mahinderpal S. Dhaliwal ("Paul") and Karminderdal
S. Dhaliwal ("Karl"). Karl is married to Dhillon
Sookham Dhaliwal ("Sookham"), and their daughter is
Simran Dhaliwal Emaus ("Simran"). Manmohan died
intestate on June 21, 2010, and Kailash was made the
administratrix of his succession (the
February 9, 2011, Kailash and the Succession filed a petition
against Karl and Sookham in which they claimed that Manmohan,
Kailash and Karl were equal partners in a joint venture that
owned multiple convenience stores. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment, and Karl and Sookham also
filed a peremptory exception of prescription or peremption.
The trial court sustained the exception, finding that the
suit claiming a share of profits was not timely filed; denied
Kailash and the Succession's motion for summary judgment;
sustained Karl and Sookham's motion for summary judgment;
and dismissed with prejudice Kailash and the Succession's
claims. Kailash and the Succession appealed.
September 11, 2013 opinion, this court found that this matter
involved genuine issues of material fact regarding whether a
joint venture existed between Manmohan, Kailash and Karl and,
therefore, that summary judgment was inappropriate. See
Dhaliwal I. This court reversed the judgments of the