NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2022 CA 0265 DANIELLE' S LEGACY, L.L.C. 1 VERSUS

CARING ANGELS CONNECTION, INC., D/B/A CARING ANGELS CONNECTIONS, HENRY DAVISON, AND WANDA DAVISON Judgment rendered

On Appeal from the 19" Judicial District Court East Baton Rouge Parish State of Louisiana No. C663375 

### Judge Donald Johnson, Presiding DEC 2 9 2022

George W. Britton, III Attorneys for Appellants/Defendants Louis G. Scott Caring Angels Connection, Inc., d/b/a Monroe, Louisiana 

### Caring Angels Connections, Henry Davison, and D. F.A., L.L.C. Glen R. Petersen Attorney forAppellee/Plaintiff Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

### Danielle' s Legacy, L,L.C.

BEFORE: MCDONALD, McCLENDON, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ. 

# MCI fHOLDRIDGE, J. Defendant, D.F.A., L. L.C., appeals a summaryjudgment entered in favor of 

### plaintiff,Danielle' s Legacy, L.L.C. We reverse and remand. DISCUSSION Plaintiff is an entity that contracts with Medicaid medical providers who 

### have not been paid by the state program to assist the providers in recovering funds owed to them by the Louisiana Medicaid Program. Plaintiff filed this breach of 

### contract lawsuit against Caring Angels Connection, Inc., 

### d/b/a Caring Angels Connections ( 

### Caring Angels), Henry Davison, and D.F.A., L.L.C, 

### also doing 

### business as Caring Angels Connections ( D.F.A.)' Plaintiff alleged that it entered 

### into a contract with Caring Angels on September 26, 2017, which provided for a 

### one-third contingency fee to be paid to plaintiff in connection with any funds plaintiff successfully recovered for Caring Angels. Plaintiff further alleged that 

### Mr. Davison, the purported owner of Caring Angels, signed the contract on behalf of D.F.A. 

### According to plaintiff,as a result of its efforts, the sum of $ 69,383.32 

### was recovered for Caring Angels and was paid to D.F.A. On October 2, 2017, 

### plaintiff sent Caring Angels an invoice in the amount of $ 23, 127.77 representing 

### the amount it claimed it was owed by virtue ofthe one-third contingency contract. 

### However, D.F.A. and its owner, Mr.Davison, refused to pay the amount allegedly owed to plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the contract. In this lawsuit, plaintiff sought to recover $ 23, 127.77, reasonable attorney' s fees, costs, and interest from D.F.A. and Mr. Davison. 

### An answer was filed by the defendants, and D. F.A. 

### filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action. Therein, D.F. A. submitted that to the extent the contract legally existed, plaintiffhad no right ofaction against

Plaintifforiginally named Wanda Davison as a party defendant but later stipulated to her dismissal, Further, although D.F.A. was not named in the original petition, plaintifflaterfiled an amending petition adding D.F.A. as a party defendant. 2

### D.F.A. because it was not a party to the contract in question, nor was it even

mentioned in the contract. Additionally, D.FA. asked thatthe contract be declared 

### null and void, urging that the contract was obtained by fraud, duress, and mistakes caused by plaintiff's agents. 

### On August 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for summaryjudgment seeking judgment in the amount of $ 23, 127. 77, legal interest from the date ofthe demand,
and costs of the proceedings. Plaintiff submitted evidence in support of the

motion. 

### In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the defendants contested the admissibility of plaintiffs evidence and also submitted evidence in opposition to the motion.2 On March 1, 2021, 

### the trial court entered judgment denying plaintiffs 

### motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff requested that the court file reasons for 

### denying the motion. 

### On April 20, 2021, the trial court issued reasons for denying the motion for summaryjudgment, finding that there existed a myriadof issues of law and fact surrounding the transaction at the core ofthe litigation, which could 

### not be decided summarily. There was insufficient evidence, the court concluded, to find as a matter of law that plaintiff performed under the contract, that plaintiff 

### recovered any money on behalf of D.F.A., or to calculate compensation or 

### damages, if any was owed. Additionally, the court noted that Mr. Davison raised the issue of fraud on the part of the plaintiff, which would void the contract if

proven. 

### Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Therein, plaintiff argued that the court overlooked documents submitted 

### by plaintiff in connection with the motion for summary judgment. In support of the reconsideration motion, plaintifffiled two exhibits that were filed in connection We pretermit discussion ofthe documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment since the trial court denied the motion and a supervisory writ was not taken to this court. 3with the initial motion for summary judgment, as well as two additional exhibits

which had been " mistakenly omitted" from the evidence plaintiff filed with the 

### motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion for reconsideration and granted plaintiff' s motion for summary judgment. In a judgment signed on September 24, 2021, the trial court entered judgment against D.F.A. in the amount of $23, 127.77, court costs, legal interest, and 

### reasonable attorney' s fees as contractually set forth, to be set by the court upon 

### presentation by plaintiffand its attorney ofan accounting as to the fees believed to be due and reasonable. D.F.A. appealed, 

### arguing in four assignments of error that the trial court 

### erred in granting the motion for summaryjudgment. We agree that the trial court 

### committed legal error in reconsidering its previous denial ofa motion for summary judgment and then rendering a final summaryjudgment in favor ofplaintiff. The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a motion for 

### reconsideration with respect to anyjudgment. While many courts have considered such a motion as a motion for new trial (See, e.g., Lexington Land Development, L.L.C. v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 

### 2020-0622 (La.App. I" Cir. 5125121), 327 So.3d 8, 17, writ denied, 2021- 01194 (La. 11117121), 327 So.3d 996), to do so in this case 

### would be incorrect since a motion for new trial may only be filed from a final judgment. A motion for a new trial is not a proper procedural vehicle to challenge 

### the propriety of an interlocutory ruling. Allstate Insurance Company v. Mohamadian, 2009- 1126 ( La. App. I` Cir. 2117110), 35 So.3d 1118, 1I21. 

### Without question,the denial ofa motion for summaryjudgment is an interlocutory ruling. Id. 

### Once the trial court denied plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment, 

### plaintiff's remedies were to seek review by supervisory review ofthat ruling orto re - urge the motion for summary judgment with the same documents or to file a 4

### new motion for summary judgment, with new documents, subject to all of the



### procedural rules applicable to a motion for summary judgment. See La. C.C.P. 

### arts. 966 and 968; Allstate Insurance Company, 35 So.3d at 1121; Magallanes v. 

### Norfolk Southern Railway Company, 2009-0605 (La.App.4" Cir. 10/ 14109), 23 So.3d 985, 988-89. 

### We recognize that a court may reconsider a granting ofa partial motion for summary judgment in cases where new documents are discovered since the rendering ofthe priorjudgment and the partial judgment was not certified as final. In such cases, the grant of the partial judgment would be reversed, and the parties would conduct further proceedings before the trial court. See Zapata v. Seal, 2020- 01148 ( La. 9130121), 330 So.3d 175, 178-79. However, there is no procedure 

### provided for in La. C.C.P. art. 966 that would allow a party to file a motion to 

### reconsider a prior denial ofa summaryjudgment, and to file new documents with the motion that were " mistakenly omitted" from the original motion. If a final 

### judgment is to be rendered against a party that deprives that party of its right to a trial, the proper motion and procedures mandated by Article 966 must be followed. 

### Therefore, we reverse the trial court' sjudgment granting plaintiff's motion 

### for reconsideration ofthe denial ofits motion for summaryjudgment and granting plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment. Because we find procedural error by the trial court in the granting ofthe motion for summaryjudgment, we do not reach the 

### substantive assignments of error raised by the appellant. We remand the case to the trial court for appropriate proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Costs 

### ofthis appeal are assessed against plaintiff,Danielle' s Legacy, LLC. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

5