CITY LIFE LIVE, L.L.C. and MARCIA D. MEREDITH Plaintiffs-Appellants
POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION Defendant-Appellee
Appealed from the First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana Trial Court No. 582513 Honorable
Michael A. Pitman, Judge.
PESNELL LAW FIRM By: J. Whitney Pesnell Counsel for
Appellants, City Life Live, L.L.C., Marcia Meredith, and Ros
Di Mere, Inc.
TAYLOR, WELLONS, POLITZ & DUHE, APLC By: Travis B.
Wilkinson Counsel for Appellee
WILLIAMS, COX, and BLEICH (Pro Tempore), JJ.
BLEICH, J. (Pro Tempore).
2014, Marcia Meredith and City Life Live, L.L.C.
("CLL"), had several bank accounts with the Post
Office Employees Federal Credit Union ("Credit
Union"), as well as an outstanding loan that was secured
by the funds in the accounts. In February 2014, the Credit
Union seized the funds in the accounts after a determination
that Meredith and CLL had defaulted on their loan.
February 4, 2015, Meredith and CLL filed a petition for
damages alleging, inter alia, that CLL was unable to
finance or close a transaction involving the purchase and
sale of raw diamonds from Sierra Leone because CLL did not
have access to the funds in the seized accounts. They alleged
that this loss of business opportunity cost CLL $1.05 million
in lost profits, as well as other costs incurred in CLL's
efforts to salvage the deal. Meredith and CLL also claimed
that the Credit Union breached contractual obligations and
statutory duties owed to them as account holders, as well as
a duty to protect their privacy. The Credit Union filed its
answer on March 16, 2015. The parties engaged in discovery.
January 17, 2017, the Credit Union filed an exception of no
right of action, arguing that neither Meredith nor CLL had a
right to pursue claims arising from the allegedly lost
diamond sale. The trial court sustained this exception and
directed Meredith and CLL to supplement and/or amend their
petition to state a right of action against the Credit Union
"for the recovery of the damages, losses, costs and
expenses and other amounts which have been suffered,
sustained, and/or incurred as a result of their inability to
finance, close, and/or carry out or conclude the contracts
and/or agreements for the purchase, importation, and/or sale
of raw diamonds from Sierra Leone,
Africa." On May 3, 2017, Meredith and CLL filed
their first supplemental and amended petition which added,
inter alia, Ros DiMere, Inc. ("RDI"), a
Texas corporation incorporated on February 9, 2014, as a
plaintiff. In this petition, RDI asserted entitlement to
damages as a result of the Credit Union's alleged
tortious interference with a contract it allegedly entered
into with CLL and Meredith for the purpose of obligating CLL
and Meredith to finance the Sierra Leone diamond purchase.
According to Plaintiffs,  all of RDI's claims asserted in the
amended petition arise out of the Credit Union's alleged
tortious acts of February 2014. The Credit Union filed its
answer to this first supplemental and amended petition on
August 4, 2017.
Credit Union filed exceptions of no cause of action and
prescription on November 15, 2017, in which Defendant alleged
that RDI has no cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty
or tortious interference with contract, but if it does, the
claims have prescribed. The Credit Union filed a motion for
partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs'
claims for lost profits on February 8, 2018. On March 18 and
28, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their memoranda in opposition to
the Credit Union's exceptions and motion for partial
summary judgment. On April 14, 2018, the trial court rendered
two separate judgments. One judgment sustained the Credit
Union's exception of prescription and dismissed with
prejudice all claims of RDI, and one judgment granted the
Credit Union's motion for partial summary
judgment and dismissed with prejudice all lost
profit claims by Plaintiffs.
took devolutive appeals from both of the trial court's
April 14, 2018, judgments.
from Trial Court's Grant of Partial Summary Judgment
which Dismissed the Lost Profits Claims asserted by
Plaintiffs with Prejudice
to Plaintiffs, the trial court erred in granting
Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and
dismissing their claims for lost profits. On the other hand,
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' appeal from the trial
court's ruling on Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment is not a final judgment subject to appeal,
and as such, it should be dismissed.
Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to final judgments
identified as such by appropriate language and to
interlocutory judgments when expressly provided by law. La.
C.C.P. arts. 1918, 2083(C). A final judgment that only
partially determines the merits of an action is immediately
appealable if authorized under La. C.C.P. art. 1915.
Rhodes v. Lewis, 01-1989 (La. 05/14/02), 817 So.2d
64; Douglass v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation,
96-2825 (La. 06/13/97), 695 So.2d 953; Lee v. Sapp,
17-0490 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/06/17), 234 So.3d 122; Quality
Environmental Processes, Inc. v. Energy Development
Corp., 16-0171 (La.App. 1 Cir. 04/12/17), 218 So.3d
1045. Section (B) of article 1915 authorizes the immediate
appeal of ...