Source: https://casetext.com/case/trentecosta-v-beck-4
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:21:11+00:00

Document:
APPEAL FROM ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 63-514, DIVISION "D" HONORABLE KIRK A. VAUGHN, JUDGE.
Richard A. Tonry, Kim C. Jones, Michael C. Ginart, Jr., THE LAW OFFICE OF TONRY GINART 8651 West Judge Perez Drive Chalmette, LA 70043 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE .
Richard Ieyoub, Attorney General Gregory G. D'Angelo, Special Assistant Attorney General PANZECA D'ANGELO 111 Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Suite 1555 Metairie, LA 70005 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT .
The defendants, Kermit Smith and the State of Louisiana through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections appeal the trial court's judgment taxing them with costs and fees.
On May 2, 1990, Gordon J. Trentecosta (Mr. Trentecosta) sued the defendants, Robert Beck (Mr. Beck), Ronnie Jones (Mr. Jones), Kermit Smith (Mr. Smith) and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections for defamation in the 34th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Bernard. On April 7, 1993, Mr. Trentecosta's petition for damages was amended to add CT Arabi, Inc. (CT) as a plaintiff. CT is owned by Mr. Trentecosta and his wife. Mr. Trentecosta and CT won the lawsuit and the defendants appealed the trial court's judgment. This Court affirmed the trial court's judgment as to both liability and damages. Thereafter, the defendants sought and were granted writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court of Louisiana. The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the trial court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal and then remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. On remand, this court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against all of the defendants. This court awarded Trentecosta $50,000 and CT Arabi, Inc. $94,357.50. The defendants then applied for writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court but were denied.
After the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal rendered judgment, the plaintiffs demanded payment of the damages, costs and interest. The defendants tendered payment of the judgment for an amount less than that requested by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs accepted the payment and then brought a Motion to Tax Costs and Interests against the defendants. In their motion, the plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to a judgment for costs in the amount of $3,753.17 and that the interest on the judgment in favor of CT should date back to the date the original petition was filed by Mr. Trentecosta. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs then filed a Motion for a New Trial alleging that the judgment of the trial court failed to mention an award for costs and expert fees and that the judgment was contrary to the law. On October 13, 1999, the trial court first amended the judgment, awarding plaintiffs costs and expert fees. Then, on December 20, 1999, the trial court granted the Motion for a New Trial and rendered a judgment for pre-judgment interest in favor of CT Arabi, Inc. back to the filing of the original petition filed by Mr. Trentecosta. The defendants now appeal the judgment of the trial court awarding costs to plaintiffs.
(10) Set and tax costs and expert witness fees.
Under the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2088(10), a trial court retains jurisdiction to set and tax costs and expert witness fees even after the jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the case reviewable under the appeal is divested and the jurisdiction of the appellate court attaches. [Emphasis added].
Therefore, Louisiana's Code of Civil Procedure and the corresponding case law make it clear that a trial court may award costs and fees following an appeal. We find no distinction between a trial court setting costs and fees after an appeal has been lodged and a trial court setting costs and fees after a case has been remanded to the appellate court. In both instances, although appellate jurisdiction has attached in different ways, the law remains that the trial court still retains jurisdiction to set costs and fees. Consequently, we find that the trial court committed no error with regard to this issue.
Now that we have determined that the trial court did indeed have jurisdiction to determine costs and fees, we must next decide whether CT, as a plaintiff who was added by amendment of the original petition, has the right to pre-judgment interest dating from the filing of the original petition. We find that the trial court was correct that CT Arabi should be awarded costs and interests dating from the inception of the original lawsuit.
When the action or defense asserted in the amended petition or answer arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of filing the original pleading.
Pursuant to this article, once an amendment is deemed to relate back to the filing date of the original petition, prescription with regard to the amendment is interrupted as of the filing date of the original petition. Hackman v. Southern Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 629 So.2d 531 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1993); Gunter v. Plauche, 439 So.2d 437 (La. 1983). This article has also been interpreted to extend this principle to a petition that is amended to add an extra plaintiff. Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals, 475 So.2d 1040 (La. 1985); Phillips v. Palumbo, 94-1323 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/15/94), 648 So.2d 40; Delmore v. Hebert, 99-2061 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/22/00), 768 So.2d 251. Therefore, if a petition is amended to add an additional plaintiff or plaintiffs, the lawsuit for all plaintiffs is deemed filed the date that the original petition was filed.
It appears that the intent of Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Article 1153 is to accord all claims and parties which are added by amendment the same procedural posture as the claims and parties in the original petition. We find no reason to depart from this objective. Therefore, we find that the trial court was correct in holding that the plaintiff, CT Arabi, should receive judicial interest from the date that the original petition was filed.

References: Art. 2088
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.