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.

City Life Live, L.L.C. v. Post Office Employees Federal Credit Union

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

April 10, 2019

CITY LIFE LIVE, L.L.C. and MARCIA D. MEREDITH Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
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.

          THE 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

          Before WILLIAMS, COX, and BLEICH (Pro Tempore), JJ.

          BLEICH, J. (Pro Tempore).

         In 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.

         On 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.

         On 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."[1] 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, [2] 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.

         The 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[3] and dismissed with prejudice all lost profit claims by Plaintiffs.

         Plaintiffs took devolutive appeals from both of the trial court's April 14, 2018, judgments.

         DISCUSSION

         Appeal from Trial Court's Grant of Partial Summary Judgment which Dismissed the Lost Profits Claims asserted by Plaintiffs with Prejudice

         According 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.

         This 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 ...


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.