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.

Bedi v. Price

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit

October 2, 2019

BRYAN BEDI
v.
MELINDA PRICE, WIFE OF BRYAN BEDI

          ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 82, 808, HONORABLE TIMOTHY S. MARCEL, JUDGE, AND HONORABLE MAX N. TOBIAS, JR. JUDGE AD HOC, DIVISION "E" AND HONORABLE ROBERT J. KLEES, JUDGE AD HOC, DIVISION "X"

          COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, BRYAN BEDI Laura J. Todaro

          COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, MELINDA PRICE, WIFE OF BRYAN BEDI Melinda Price Bedi

          COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WANDA VICE-LOUPE, MARGARET MCKENZIE AND MELISSA MARTINDALE Robert L. Raymond

          COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WANDA VICE-LOUPE AND MARGARET MCKENZIE Chester C. Stetfelt

          Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

          JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE

         Appellant, Melinda Price Bedi, in proper person, filed the instant appeal which challenges several rulings of the trial court related to an underlying domestic proceeding. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         We first take note of appellant's prior appeal, 18-CA-476, which was dismissed by this Court as abandoned by an Order dated April 10, 2019.[1] In that appeal, appellant had filed a motion to supplement the record with the files of three court reporters[2] based upon an allegation that there was "missing verbiage" left out of the official transcripts of the proceedings. In denying appellant's motion on October 17, 2018, we found that she had not demonstrated any inaccuracies or misstatements in the record.

         While 18-CA-476 was pending, appellant filed a second appeal (the instant appeal), which was designated as 19-CA-138.[3] In the record for 19-CA-138, there is a trial court judgment dated October 9, 2018, which pertained to an Ex Parte Motion to Quash Notices of Deposition for Records Only and Subpoenas Duces Tecum filed by the court reporters who had transcribed various proceedings in the matter. While the judgment partially granted the motion to quash, it also ordered appellant to identify by volume, page and line, which portions of the official transcript she claimed were inaccurate. In turn, the court reporters were to compare appellant's allegations to their own shorthand notes or any recordings they had in their possession. If, in fact, there were corrections made by the court reporters to any portion of the transcripts, the court reporters were then ordered to send the amended versions to the Clerk of Court for the 29th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles.

         On April 9, 2019, this Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and ordered the trial court to amend the October 9, 2018 judgment to "include the appropriate and necessary decretal language within fifteen (15) days of this order." The trial court amended the judgment on that same date. The amended judgment stated that the trial court was ruling in favor of the court reporters to the extent that appellant was ordered to specifically identify which portions of the transcript she believed were incorrectly transcribed. The amended judgment further clarified that the trial court ruled in favor of appellant insofar as the court reporters were ordered to take appellant's allegations of the incomplete transcripts and compare these to their own notes, in whatever form they existed, within 72 hours, and to transmit any corrections to the Clerk of Court for the 29th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles. Counsel for the court reporters was further ordered to advise appellant "of the results of their searches for missing portions of the transcript(s) and shall further advise when each of them delivers any missing portions(s) of transcripts to the trial court's clerk of court."

         THE MOTION FOR APPEAL IN CASE 19-CA-138

         In appellant's motion for appeal, which was filed in the trial court on October 17, 2018, appellant specifically challenged the trial court's partial grant of the court reporters' motion to quash, as well as the trial court's decision to schedule a hearing on appellant's two ex parte motions she claims were filed on September 10, 2018.

         APPELLANT'S ...


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.