Court Opinion

ID: 9898915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 16:08:02.615603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:52.838845
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                           COURT OF APPEAL

                                             FIRST CIRCUIT

                                               2023 CA 0558

                                       BRIGITTE TAYLOR- HAYNES

                                                 VERSUS

                               TROPICANA ENTERTAINMENT LLC D/B/A
                                     THE BELLE OF BATON ROUGE

                                                          Judgment Rendered:       NOV 15 2023

        I

    1
l
            U
                1
                               On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court
                                  In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                                             State of Louisiana
                                 Trial Court Docket Number C658360, Sec. 27

                                    Hon. Trudy M. White, Judge Presiding

            Alvin R. Washington                          Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant,
            Baton Rouge, Louisiana                       Brigitte Taylor -Haynes

            Brett M. Bollinger                           Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee,

            Jeffrey E. McDonald                          Catfish Queen Partnership
            L. Peter Englade                             in Commendam
            Covington, Louisiana

                        BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ.
PENZATO, J.

      Plaintiff/appellant, Brigitte Taylor -Haynes, appeals from the trial court' s

January 5, 2023 judgment granting a " Motion for Summary Judgment/ Exception of

Prescription"   filed   by   defendant/ appellee,   Catfish   Queen   Partnership   in

Commendam.      For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for further

proceedings.

                    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

      Brigitte Taylor -Haynes allegedly sustained injuries in a slip and fall accident

at the Belle of Baton Rouge, a casino, on June 6, 2016. She filed suit on June 1,

2017 against Tropicana Entertainment, LLC as the alleged owner and operator of

the Belle of Baton Rouge at the time of her accident.         Tropicana answered the

petition on July 5, 2017, asserting that it " does not directly own or operate the

Belle of Baton Rouge." ( Emphasis added.)

      With leave of court, Ms. Taylor -Haynes amended her petition for damages

on December 11, 2020.    The amended petition named Catfish Queen Partnership in

Commendam D/ B/ A Belle of Baton Rouge as a defendant and alleged that Catfish

Queen owned and operated the Belle of Baton Rouge. Catfish Queen answered the

amended petition on February 12, 2021 and admitted that it owned and operated

the Belle of Baton Rouge.

      On February 7, 2022, more than four years after suit was filed and more than

one year after Catfish Queen was added as a defendant, Tropicana filed a motion

for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the claims against it. Tropicana

maintained that it did not " directly own or operate" the Belle of Baton Rouge. The

motion was granted, and all claims asserted against Tropicana were dismissed via

judgment signed on March 31, 2022.

      On July 12, 2022, Catfish Queen filed the subject motion for summary

judgment and alternative peremptory exception of prescription, asserting that Ms.

                                           2
Taylor-Haynes' s suit, filed more than one year after the alleged slip and fall, was

prescribed.     See La. C. C. art. 3492 (" Delictual actions are subject to a liberative

prescription of one year.")         See also La. C. C. P. arts. 927( A)( 1)         and 966. Catfish

Queen argued that, since Tropicana was dismissed, the original petition timely filed

against Tropicana did not interrupt prescription on the claims against it, Catfish

Queen.     Pursuant     to   La.   C. C.   art.   3462,    prescription      is   interrupted by the

commencement of suit against the obligor in a court of competent jurisdiction and

venue.    The interruption of prescription by suit against one joint or solidary obligor

is effective as to all obligors.             See La. C. C.     arts.     1799, 2324( C),    and 3503.

However, a suit timely filed against one defendant does not interrupt prescription

as against other defendants not timely sued, where the timely sued defendant is

ultimately found not liable to plaintiffs.                In this instance, no joint or solidary

obligation would exist.         See Renfroe v State ex rel. Department of Transportation

and Development, 2001- 1646 ( La. 2126102), 809 So.2d 947, 950.

         In response, Ms. Taylor -Haynes asserted that the amended petition related

back to the filing of the original petition.            Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art.

1153 provides, " 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."          Ms. Taylor -Haynes also asserted that the relation

back criteria set forth in Ray v. Alexandria Mall, Through St. Paul Property &

Liability Ins., 434 So. 2d 1083, 1086- 87 ( La. 1983) were satisfied.

         The    trial   court      granted     Catfish      Queen' s "     Motion     for   Summary

Judgment/ Exception of Prescription" in a judgment signed on January 5, 2023, and

dismissed all claims asserted by Ms. Taylor -Haynes against Catfish Queen, with

prejudice.     The trial court found that the issue was governed solely by La. C. C. art,

                                                    3
1799,'    applicable to solidary obligors, and agreed with Catfish Queen that

prescription was not interrupted against it after Tropicana was dismissed; therefore,

the plaintiff' s claims against Catfish Queen were prescribed.               The trial court

expressly found that La. C. C.P. art. 1153 did not apply and, therefore, did not

perform a relation back analysis pursuant to Ray.

         This appeal by Ms. Taylor -Haynes followed.

                                          DISCUSSION

         Generally, prescriptive statutes are strictly construed against prescription and

in favor of the claim sought to be extinguished by it. The burden of proof on the

issue of prescription lies with the party asserting it unless the plaintiff' s claim is

barred on its face, in which case the burden shifts to the plaintiff.                Bailey v.

Khoury, 2004- 0620 ( La. 1120105), 891 So. 2d 1268, 1275.

         In this case, the amended petition is prescribed on its face because it was

filed on December 11, 2020, over four years after the accident, which occurred on

June 6, 2016.       See La. C. C.      art.   3492. Therefore, Ms. Taylor -Haynes had the

burden of proving that her claims against Catfish Queen were not prescribed.

         On appeal, Ms. Taylor -Haynes asserts that the trial court erred in ruling that

La. C. C.P. art. 1. 153 does not apply. Ms. Taylor -Haynes further asserts that the Ray

criteria are satisfied, and the trial court erred by failing to find that the amended

petition filed against Catfish Queen relates back to the date of the filing of the

original petition naming Tropicana. We agree with both assertions.

         Relation Back as a Basis to Revive the Suit

         In Renfroe, 809 So. 2d at 949-950, the plaintiff timely filed suit against the

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ( DOTD), erroneously

believing it was the party legally responsible for the roadway where the subject

  Louisiana Civil Code art. 1799 states, " The interruption of prescription against one solidary
obligor is effective against all solidary obligors and their heirs."

                                                   4
accident    occurred.   After the expiration of the prescriptive period, the plaintiff

amended the petition to name the correct owners of the roadway, and the claims

against DOTD were dismissed. The Louisiana Supreme Court stated that, because

the timely sued defendant was dismissed from the suit, prescription against the

substitute defendants was not interrupted and plaintiff' s suit against them was

prescribed, "   unless some other basis to revive" the suit was found. Renfroe, 809

So. 2d at 950.    The court then conducted a relation back analysis, applying the Ray

criteria to the facts of the case. Renfroe, 809 So. 2d at 950- 953.

          Similarly, see Laforte v. GulfIsland Fabrication, Inc., 2010- 1605 ( La. App.

1st Cir. 513111), 65 So. 3d 182, 185- 86, writ denied, 2011- 1484 ( La. 9130111),           71

So. 3d 296, wherein this court stated, "[ Ijn this case,           since the timely sued

defendant... was     dismissed from the     suit,   prescription   against [   the   substitute

defendant] is not interrupted and the plaintiffs' suit against it has prescribed, unless

some other basis to revive this suit is found."       Citing Renfroe, 809 So.2d at 950.

This court then applied the Ray, criteria to the facts of the case to determine

whether the amended petition adding the substitute defendant related back to the

date the original petition was filed. See La. C. C. P. art. 1153. Laforte, 65 So. 3d at

186- 7.    See also Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Randall J Hebert & Associates,

Inc., 2019- 767 ( La. App. 3d Cir. 4129120), 297 So. 3d 1051,      1055, finding that joint

or solidary liability did not exist, because the timely sued defendants were

dismissed, and the amended petition did not relate back to the original filing date

pursuant to Article 1153.

          Here, the trial court ended its analysis upon concluding that the timely sued

defendant, Tropicana, was dismissed.        The trial court legally erred by failing to

determine whether " some other basis to revive this suit" existed, i.e., relation back

                                             1
                                                                 2
pursuant to Article 1153 and the Ray criteria.                       See Renfroe, 809 So. 2d at 950.

Therefore,      we review the evidence de novo to determine whether the amended

petition naming Catfish Queen relates back to the timely filed suit against
                                                                     2021- 1362 ( La.   App.   1st Cir.
Tropicana.       See Landry v City of Mandeville,

4/ 27/22), 342 So.3d 337, 344, writ denied, 2022- 00828 ( La. 9127122), 347 So. 3d

155 ( the de novo standard of review applies when one or more legal errors interdict

the fact-finding process.) Because we find legal error, we pretermit discussion of

the standard of review that would otherwise apply to Catfish Queen' s motion for

summary judgment and alternative peremptory exception of prescription. 3

        Amended Petition Naming Catfish Queen Relates Back

         As set forth in Ray, 434 So.2d at 1086- 1087, the following criteria are relied

upon to determine whether La. C. C. P.                   art.    1153 allows an amendment,       which

2 A legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are
prejudicial. Legal errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the outcome and deprive a
party of substantial rights. Landry v. City of Mandeville, 2021- 1362 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4127122),
342 So. 3d 337, 344, writ denied, 2022- 00828 ( La. 9/ 2712.2), 347 So. 3d 155. Because we find the
trial court legally erred by failing to apply La. C. C. P. art. 1153 and by failing to conduct a
relation back analysis, we pretermit consideration of whether the trial court erred by applying La.
C.C. P. art. 1799. Even without such a finding, a relation back analysis is required. See Findley v.
City of *Baton Rouge, 570 So. 2d 1168, 1170 ( La. 1990), applying Article 1153 and the Ray
criteria where there was no allegation of joint or solidary liability between the City of Baton
Rouge and the Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of Baton Rouge ( BREC).

3 Catfish Queen did not introduce exhibits into evidence during the hearing on its alternative
exception of prescription. Evidence not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be
considered on an exception of prescription, even if it is physically placed in the record.
Documents attached to memoranda do not constitute evidence and cannot be considered as such
on appeal. Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc., 2007- 2143 ( La. 5121/ 08), 983 So. 2d 84,
8$.   Therefore,      we do not consider the exhibits attached to Catfish Queen' s exception of
prescription in connection with our de novo review. We also note that the result reached in this
opinion would be the same if we considered Catfish Queen' s assertion of prescription pursuant to
La. C. C. P. art. 966. Catfish Queen' s exhibits did not include the original and amended petitions
or the relevant judgment dismissing Tropicana. Documents must specifically be filed in support
of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment for the court to consider them; reference
to documents existing elsewhere in the record is not sufficient. Davis v. Hixson Autoplex of
Monroe, L.L. C., 51, 991 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 5123118), 249 So. 3d 177, 182. See also Troncoso v.
Point Carr Homeowners Association, 2022- 0530 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1/ 10123), 360 So. 3d 901,
915. Therefore, Catfish Queen failed to satisfy its summary judgment burden of proof. See La.
                                  Although La. C. C. P art. 966 was amended by La. Acts 2023,
C. C. P. art. 966( A)(4) and ( D)( 1).
No. 317, § 1; La. Acts 2023, No. 368, § ( eff. Aug. 1,
                                                     2023) to provide a procedure for reference
to documents previously filed into the record, this court has held that the 2023 amendment to
Article 966 cannot be applied retroactively. See Ricketson v. Mckenzie, 2023- 0314 ( La. App. 1st
Cir. 10/ 4/ 23) ---   So. 3d ---, ---,   2023 WL 7037495, * 4.

                                                         2
changes the identity of the defendant, to relate back to the date of filing of the
original petition:

           1.   The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or
              occurrence set forth in the original pleading;
           2. The purported substitute defendant must have received notice of
              the institution of the action such that he will not be prejudiced
                in maintaining a defense on the merits;
           3. The purported substitute defendant must know or should have
                known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the
                proper party defendant, the action would have been brought
                against him; and
           4.   The purported substitute defendant must not be a wholly new or
                unrelated defendant.

       The doctrine of relation back of amended pleadings should be liberally

applied,   particularly in the absence of prejudice.      Where there is some factual

                                                                  together   with   some
connexity between the original and amended assertions,

identity of interest between the original and the additional or supplemental parties,

amendment should be allowed.         Holmes v. Triad Hospitality, 2011- 1486 ( La. App.

3d Cir. 5116112), 89 So. 3d 532, 535.

       The first Ray criteria is undisputedly satisfied here.      The claims against

Catfish Queen set forth in the amended petition arise out of Ms. Taylor-Haynes' s

purported slip and fall accident at the Belle of Baton Rouge on June 6, 2016. This

is the same incident that forms the basis of Ms. Taylor-Haynes' s claims against

Tropicana in the original petition.

       We consider the remaining Ray criteria together, since the strength of the

relationship between Tropicana and Catfish Queen is pertinent to each.

       The prevention of prejudice to the defendant in preparing and conducting its

defense is the " gravamen"       of the second Ray criteria. Findley v. City of Baton

Rouge, 570 So. 2d 1168, 1170 ( La. 1990). " A fundamental purpose of prescriptive

statutes is to protect a defendant from stale claims and from the loss or non -

preservation     of relevant   proof."   Findley, 570 So. 2d at 1170.   To avoid such

prejudice, the second Ray criteria concerns whether the newly added defendant

                                              7
received notice of the institution of the action. An inference of notice may arise,

and the amendment may relate back, where an identity of interest exists between

the originally named defendant and the party the plaintiff intended to sue. In this
instance, the institution of the action against one serves to provide notice of the

litigation to the other.    Sufficiency of the identity of interests depends upon the

closeness of the relationship between the parties in their business operations and

other activities.   Findley, 570 So. 2d at 1171. The relationship between the entities

must be of such a close nature that there is an inference of notice. 1tlicken v. DHC

OPCO-Napoleonville, LLC, 2018- 0140 ( La.               App.   1st Cir. 11/ 2/ 18),    2018 WL

5732482, * 4 ( unpublished).

       In opposition to Catfish Queen' s alternative exception of prescription, Ms.

Taylor -Haynes properly offered, filed, and introduced twenty-nine exhibits into

evidence!    This evidence establishes that Ms. Taylor -Haynes was confronted with

a " maze of closely related corporate"      entities.   See Renfroe, 809 So. 2d at 952.

       Catfish      Queen   is one of five closely related companies,                 along   with

Tropicana; New Tropicana Holdings, Inc.; New Jazz Enterprise, L.L.C.; and New

Tropicana OpCo, Inc.         Tropicana was the parent company of New Tropicana

Holdings and served as the manager of New Jazz. New Tropicana Holdings and

New Jazz were Catfish Queen' s limited partners, and New Tropicana OpCo was

Catfish Queen' s general partner.

       In response to plaintiff's requests for admission, Catfish Queen denied that it

was ever "   a direct subsidiary" of Tropicana; however, a 2018 lease assignment,

concerning property in Baton Rouge, identifies Catfish Queen as " an indirect and

controlled subsidiary" of Tropicana.         This document further states that Tropicana

 agreed to cause [ Catfish Queen]         to assign"     its right, title, and interest in the

4 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 931 allows for the introduction of evidence to support or
controvert a peremptory exception.

                                                8
subject lease,    evidencing Tropicana' s control over Catfish Queen. Similarly, a

September 2018 loan document identifies Tropicana as Catfish Queen' s " ultimate

parent company."       The document was signed by Catfish Queen' s general partner to

allow Tropicana to refinance a loan, and Catfish Queen agreed to serve as

guarantor.

       The evidence,          including the September 2018 loan document, also reflects

that these five entities shared many of the same officers.            These entities also shared

multiple   addresses,        in " c/ o Tropicana,"       in Las Vegas, Nevada.    For instance,

several documents reflect that Catfish Queen, New Tropicana OpCo, New

Tropicana Holdings, and New Jazz identified their municipal address as "                      c/ o

Tropicana Entertainment Inc. 3930 Howard Hughes Parkway, 4"                    Mr., Las Vegas,

NV 89169."       At other times, each company, including Catfish Queen, identified its

address as "   c/ o Tropicana Entertainment Inc., 8345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 300 Las

                         5
Vegas, NV 89113."             The previously mentioned 2018 lease assignment identifies

Catfish Queen' s address as " c/ o Tropicana Entertainment Inc., 8345 W. Sunset

Road, Suite 300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113."                    This is also listed as Tropicana' s

address in several foreign corporation annual reports filed with the Louisiana

Secretary of State.

       Catfish Queen does not deny a corporate connection with Tropicana.

Instead, Catfish Queen asserts that Tropicana is not one of its " direct"              partners.

We find no merit in this argument.          The identity of interest determination considers

more than simply whether a " direct" parent/ subsidiary relationship exists.

        In Cortinez v. Handford, 490            So.2d 626 ( La.      App. 2d Cir.    1986),   the

plaintiff, Cortinez, timely filed suit against " Jack Handford, d/ b/ a Jack' s Lounge"

as the owner and proprietor of the lounge where she was injured; she also named

the property' s liability insurer. Cortinez subsequently amended her petition to

S Suite 200 is also listed.

                                                     9
name Karo, Inc., as the alleged owner of the lounge. Cortinez, 490 So. 2d at 627.

Mr. Handford and the insurer were subsequently dismissed from the suit.                     The

Second Circuit Court of Appeal concluded that the relationship between the timely

sued insurer and Karo, Inc., its insured, was sufficient to allow the amended

petition naming Karo, Inc. to relate back. Cortinez, 490 So. 2d at 630.

        In Findley, 570 So. 2d at 1172, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the

 very close relationship"        between the City of Baton Rouge and BREL was

sufficient to allow the amended petition naming BREC as a defendant to relate

back to the suit filed against the City. Although BREC and the City were separate

entities, the City exercised " an element of control" over BREC similar to that

existing between corporations with interlocking officers and directors. Findley,

570 So. 2d at 1171.      The relationship between the City and BREC " was much the

same"
        as that between a parent corporation and a subsidiary. Findley, 570 So.2d at

1171- 1172.      Similarly, here, the evidence reflects that Tropicana exercised an

element of control over Catfish Queen and their " very close relationship"                  was

 much the same"     as a parent corporation and its subsidiary.

        Tellingly, Catfish Queen does not assert that it has been prejudiced by Ms.

Taylor-Haynes' s failure to name it as an original defendant.             The same law firm

and attorneys that represented Tropicana in this litigation since its inception also

represent Catfish Queen.          These attorneys engaged in discovery on behalf of

Tropicana, enabling Catfish Queen to benefit from these efforts and preventing

prejudice   due    to   the   failure   to   preserve   evidence   or   engage   in   a   prompt

investigation.    In Cortinez, 490 So. 2d at 630, the court noted that the timely named

insurer investigated the plaintiff' s claims and the same attorneys that represented

Mr. Handford, the dismissed original defendant, also represented Karo, Inc. " The

only reasonable inference is that Karo, Inc. must have received notice of the

institution of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense

                                                 10
on the merits."    Cortinez, 490 So. 2d at 630.          See Montminy v. Jobe, 23474, 600

So. 2d 1211 124- 5 ( La. App. 2d Cir. 1992), writ denied, 604 So. 2d 1003 ( La. 1. 992),

 with the same attorney representing both the original and substituted defendants,

and considering the tardiness with which [ the original defendant] clarified her

position,    we fail now to view the [ substitute defendants] as wholly new and

unrelated parties."

       Catfish Queen asserts that Tropicana advised Ms. Taylor -Haynes that it did

not own or operate the Belle of Baton Rouge, information she " simply ignored."

However, as pointed out by Ms. Taylor -Haynes, Tropicana asserted that it did not

directly own or operate the premises, indicating it may have some indirect

ownership or legal responsibility for the operation of the premises. Additionally,

Tropicana participated in this litigation for nearly four years before it clarified its

position.6    See Montminy, 600 So.2d at 124, examining the original defendant' s

post -suit litigation tactics in its consideration of the Ray criteria, noting that the

original defendant' s pleadings          and litigation position were not " designed to

conclude her involvement in the litigation, directly and expeditiously." Montminy,

600 So. 2d at 124.

       After our de novo review, we conclude that an identity of interest exists

between Tropicana and Catfish Queen such that notice of the institution of the suit

to Tropicana served to provide notice to Catfish Queen ( second Ray criteria).' See

Findley, 570 So.2d at 1171; Micken, 2018 WL 5732482 at * 4.                      The undisputed,

b In its answer, Tropicana asserted that the petition failed to state a cause of action and a right of
action, with no factual support provided. Tropicana did not include an order to set these
peremptory exceptions for trial. See La. C. C. P. art. 929. Tropicana also asserted the affirmative
defenses of failure to mitigate, third -party fault, and plaintiffs sole fault, again with no factual
support. See La. C. C. P. art. 1005; La. C. C. art. 2323. Tropicana' s boilerplate assertions could
have further caused Ms. Taylor -Haynes to disregard Tropicana' s assertion that it did not
 directly own or operate" the Belle of Baton Rouge.
7 For this reason, we find no merit in Catfish Queen' s assertion that it did not receive notice of
suit during the prescriptive period and that this alone is a " fundamental flaw" in the plaintiff' s
relation back   argument.   Catfish Queen' s reliance on cases like RenfYoe, 809 So. 2d 947,
discussing notice of suit where no identity of interest existed between the original and substitute
defendant, is misplaced.

                                                  Il
close connection between Tropicana and Catfish Queen also supports a finding that

Catfish Queen was not a wholly new or unrelated defendant ( fourth Ray criteria)

and should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper

party defendant, the action would have been brought against it (third Ray criteria).

See Findley, 570 So. 2d at 1172, citing the close relationship between BREC and

the City as support for finding that the third and fourth Ray criteria were satisfied.

See also Cortinez, 490 So. 2d at 630, wherein the court found the fourth Ray criteria

was satisfied, because the plaintiffs original petition asserted a negligence claim

against the owner and operator of Jack' s Lounge. " Accordingly, Karo, Inc. must

have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party

defendant, the action would have been brought against it as the actual owner and

operator of the lounge." Cortinez, 490 So. 2d at 630.      The same is true here. Ms.

Taylor-Haynes' s claim has remained unchanged since the original petition was

filed; she asserts a premises liability cause of action against the owner and operator

of the Belle of Baton Rouge.

      We conclude that the Ray criteria are satisfied, and the amended petition

naming Catfish Queen as a defendant relates back under La. C. C.P. art. 1153 to the

date of filing of the original petition, naming Tropicana as the owner and operator

of the Belle of Baton Rouge.

                                      DECREE

      The   January   5,   2023   judgment     granting   the "   Motion   for   Summary

Judgment/ Exception    of Prescription"   filed by Catfish Queen Partnership          in

Commendam is reversed.      We deny Catfish Queen' s motion for summary judgment

and alternative peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription.          The

case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. All costs of this appeal

are assessed against Catfish Queen Partnership in Commendam.

       REVERSED AND REMANDED.

                                          12