Court Opinion

ID: 9955278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 22:06:36.779961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:24.618027
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA
     COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
ORLANDO BATISTE                                 NO.   2024 CW 0086

VERSUS                                                 PAGE 1 OF 2

SUPER CHINA BUFFET INC.,
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY
AND/OR MURPHY INSURANCE AND                     MARCH 25, 2024
DOLLAR DISTRIBUTING

In Re:    Dollar Distributing,   Inc., applying for supervisory
          writs, 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of West
          Baton Rouge, No. 1046800.

BEFORE:   WELCH, THERIOT, WOLFE, MILLER, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

     WRIT DENIED.

                                JEW
                                MRT

     Miller,  J. ,  concurs  with   the   denial  of  the   writ.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966 (C) (3) provides
that the court shall render a judgment on the motion not less
than twenty days prior to the trial.   The district court ordered
a written judgment.   See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1914 (B).   There
is no signed judgment before this court.      The district court
noted that the proposed judgment filed by relator did "not
conform with the Court's ruling" and subsequently issued a
Clarification of Ruling and Written Reasons.       However, these
reasons do not constitute a judgment, nor do they clearly set
forth the court's ruling.

      Wolfe and Stromberg, JJ., dissent and would grant the writ.
The   district   court  failed   to  rule   on  the  objections   by
defendant, Dollar Distributing, Inc. ("Dollar"), to Exhibits 1,
2, 3, 4 and 7 filed by defendant, Super China Buff et, Inc.
 ("Super China").   See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(0) (2).   Upon de
novo review, we would find the objections to these exhibits
should have been sustained,       because the documents are not
certified or otherwise authenticated.     See La. Code Civ. P. art.
966 (A) (4).  The motion for summary judgment was filed by Dollar,
the owner of the property at issue, pursuant to La. R.S. 9:3221,
which provides that the owner of premises leased under a
contract whereby the lessee, in this case Super China, assumes
responsibility for their condition, is not liable for injury
caused by any defect therein to the lessee or anyone on the
premises who derives the right to be thereon from the lessee,
unless the owner knew or should have known of the defect or had
received notice thereof and failed to remedy it within a
reasonable time.     There is no dispute that the lease between
Dollar and Super China provides that Super China, as lessee,
assumed    full  and complete   responsibility for    all  repairs,
replacements and maintenance of the leased premises, including
the parking lot.     Dollar filed an affidavit attesting that the
location where plaintiff fell is encompassed in the area covered
by the lease with Super China.    Plaintiff and Super China argue
                   STATE OF LOUISIANA
     COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
                                             NO.   2024 CW 0086

                                                    PAGE 2 OF 2

the lease inadequately defined the parking lot area included in
the lease, but failed to produce sufficient factual support to
establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as
to this issue.  While plaintiff argues there is an issue of fact
as to whether Dollar had constructive notice of the alleged
defect, arguing the affidavit filed by Dollar did not address
constructive notice, the affidavit attests that Dollar did not
have notice of any vices, defects or ruin in the parking lot at
Super China.    Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient factual
support to establish the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact as to this issue.     Moreover, the jurisprudence
interpreting La. R.S. 9:3221 does not support the imposition of
a duty on the part of a lessor to inspect conditions over which
a   lessee has assumed responsibility.   Stuckey v. Riverstone
Residential SC, LP, 2008-1770 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/5/09), 21
So.3d 970, writ denied, 2009-2328 (La. 1/8/10), 24 So.3d 873;
Scott v. Adams, 2021-0589 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/17/22), 340 So.3d
1091, 1097, writ denied, 2022-00448 (La. 5/10/22), 337 So.3d
908. Therefore, we would grant the motion for summary judgment
and    dismiss plaintiff's  claims  against   defendant,  Dollar
Distributing, Inc.

COURT OF APPEAL,   FIRST CIRCUIT

    DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
        FOR THE COURT