Court Opinion

ID: 9389140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 18:04:59.935291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.345727
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOU 11ISIANA
                                                                             I

           COURT OF APPEAL, F1,IRST CIRCUIT

ANGELA      D.    KING                                                                              NO.         2022 CW          1311

VERSUS

STATE      PLUMBING BOARD OF
LOUISIANA,          ASHLEY        E.    JONES
AND ASHLEIGH W.               CAMBRE                                                                  APRIL 24,              2023

In Re:            State          Plumbing          Board          of     Louisiana,                    Ashley          E.        Jones,
                  and        Ashleigh             W.           Cambre,           applying                  for        supervisory
                  writs,          19th       Judicial             District                    Court,        Parish          of     East
                  Baton Rouge,               No.       645443.

BEFORE:           GUIDRY,         C.J., WOLFE AND MILLE~, JJ.

                  WRIT       GRANTED             IN     PART;          DENI:¢D                IN    PART.        In    a     summary
judgment,              the        burden              of        proof            rests                with          the          mover.
Nevertheless,               if   the       mover        will      not        bear             the     burden        of      proof       at
trial       on    the     issue         that       is       before       the              court       on      the     motion        for
summary          judgment,            the     mover's             burden', on                   the        motion          does     not
require          him    to       negate          all           essential              elements              of      the      adverse
party's          claim,      action,             or     defense,             but              rather       to    point       out        to
the       court        the       absence           of          factual           s~ pport              for       one        or     more
elements          essential             to       the        adverse          party's                  claim,          action,           or
defense.         The    burden          is    on       the       adverse ' party                      to    produce          factual
support       sufficient              to    establish the                existence                    of    a    genuine          issue
                                                                                  I

of    material          fact      or    that          the       mover        is   I not            entitled           to    judgment
as    a    matter      of    law.       La.      Code           Civ.    P.       art.           966(D).          Pursuant          to    a
                                                                                  I

de    novo       review,         we     find       defendants                pointed                out       the     absence           of
factual           support          that          defendant,                  Ashleigh                  Cambre,             had      any
involvement            in    any      action that                was    instituted against                             plaintiff,
Angela       King,          which       became             the     basis , of                   Ms.        King's          malicious
prosecution             and       intentional                   inflictiofl                   of    emotional               distress
claims.       Ms.      King offered no                     evidence          in',opposition                      to the motion
for       summary       judgment            to     show          that    a        genuine              issue        of      material
                                                                                      I

fact       exists      as    to whether Ashleigh Cambre had any                                                 involvement             in
any       action    instituted               against            Ms.     King.         1       Because       Ms.       King       failed
                                                                                      1

to provide          sufficient               factual            support           to establish the existence
                                                                                    1
of    a    genuine       issue         of    material             fact           or that Ashleigh Cambre is
                                                                                      1

not       entitled to            judgment         as       a    matter of 1law,                     summary           judgment          is
appropriate.            Accordingly,                   we       grant        this              writ      in     part,        reverse
the       trial    court's         November                2,    2022        judgment               in      part,          and    grant
summary          judgment          in      favor           of     defendant,                    Ashleigh            Cambre,         and
dismiss          her    from       this          litigation.                 In           all      other        respects,           the
                                                                                          I

writ is denied.

                                                                 JMG
                                                                 EW
                                                                 SMM

COURT      OF APPEAL,            FIRST CIRCUIT

          DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
              FOR THE         COURT