Case ID: f3d_310/html/0786-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

INDUSTRIAS MAGROMER CUEROS Y PIELES S.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOUISIANA BAYOU FURS INC., et al., Defendants, Louisiana Bayou Furs Inc., William L. Berry, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 01-30185.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 23, 2002.
    Brent Bennett Barriere (argued), Phelps Dunbar, Owen Bennett St. Amant, Smith & Fawer, New Orleans, LA, Luther T. Munford, Phelps Dunbar, Jackson, MS, Harry Alston Johnson, III, Phelps Dunbar, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Charles D. Marshall, Jr. (argued), Charles A. Snyder, Milling Benson Woodward, New Orleans, LA, Glenn G. Morris (argued), Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellants.
   ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

Before JONES, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Defendants-Appellants’ (Louisiana Bayou Furs, Inc. (“Bayou Furs”) and William L. Berry (“Berry”)) Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. In denying rehearing, we clarify a statement in Part X of the opinion. In Part X, we stated that “the fact that we have granted judgment as a matter of law for Berry on the LUTPA claim does not affect the judgment or his liability for the damages.” As the Defendants-Appellants point out, the statutory claim for attorneys’ fees in this case was under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”). Because we granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Berry on the LUTPA claim, Berry is not liable to the Plaintiff-Appellee for attorneys’ fees. However, this does not affect Bayou Furs’s liability to the Defendants-Appellants or Berry’s liability for the damages awarded by the jury. In all other respects, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is DENIED.