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.

McCoy v. Manor

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

May 9, 2019

LYDIA MCCOY
v.
TIGER MANOR

          Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit Number C650672 Honorable Todd Hernandez, Presiding

          Lydia McCoy Plaintiff/Appellant Baton Rouge, LA In Proper Person

          Jennifer E. Michel Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Jaime F. Landry S.C. Tiger Manor, LLC Lafayette, LA

          BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, PENZATO, JJ.

          GUIDRY, J.

         Lydia McCoy appeals from a trial court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Tiger Manor[1], and dismissing her claims against Tiger Manor with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         McCoy was a resident of an apartment complex owned and operated by Tiger Manor. On August 11, 2016, McCoy filed the instant action, in proper person, against Tiger Manor, asserting that her vehicle was destroyed by water on October 26, 2015, while parked in a lot on Tiger Manor's property, and that the damage to her vehicle was the result of serious flaws in the design, construction, and maintenance of the parking lot. McCoy alleged that as a result of Tiger Manor's negligence, she suffered damages, including loss of her new, custom ordered vehicle, loss of earnings, and mental anguish.

         Thereafter, McCoy amended her petition to more specifically allege that the parking lot where her car was parked was designed and built improperly and with serious defects, and that the drainage system in that portion of the parking lot is dysfunctional because rain water gathers in that spot while other sections of the parking lot on the property remain safe and suitable for parking. McCoy also asserted claims for false advertising and breach of contract related to other issues with the apartment complex, including management, maintenance, and transportation. McCoy attached several photographs and maintenance lists to her amended petitions.

         Tiger Manor filed an answer to McCoy's claims, asserting that McCoy's damages as related to her vehicle, if any, were caused by an Act of God, particularly a named hurricane and/or other fortuitous event beyond the control of Tiger Manor. Tiger Manor also filed a motion for summary judgment on February 1, 2018, asserting that McCoy is unable to produce any evidence that the parking lot contained a defect and further, is unable to establish that any alleged defect caused the flooding and resulting damage. Rather, Tiger Manor asserted that any flooding was the result of Hurricane Patricia, an Act of God. Tiger Manor also sought summary judgment as to McCoy's remaining claims, asserting that McCoy is unable to meet her burden of proof as to any element of those claims.

         Thereafter, on March 29, 2018, McCoy filed a motion for continuance, asserting that she is self-represented and needs additional time to retain legal counsel to represent her in this matter.

         The trial court conducted a hearing on McCoy's motion to continue and Tiger Manor's motion for summary judgment on April 2, 2018. Following the presentation of argument by the parties, the trial court denied McCoy's motion to continue and took Tiger Manor's motion for summary judgment under advisement. Thereafter, the trial court issued a written ruling, finding:

[t]he plaintiff has failed to submit the slightest of evidence that may even suggest that the defendant may reasonably be at fault for the damages she alleges she has suffered and no evidence has been submitted to remotely suggest, much less prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's conduct in some way caused or contributed to the cause of the flooding in the defendant's parking lot.

         Furthermore, the trial court found that plaintiff had more than sufficient time to retain legal counsel and to ...


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.