Edward Jackson VS A. Wayne Stewart & Associates, A. Wayne Stewart and Damon Miley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2007 CA 0192 EDWARD JACKSON VERSUS A WAYNE STEWART ASSOCIATES A WAYNE STEWART AND DAMON MILEY Judgment Rendered November 2 2007 Appealed from the 1 Twenty First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Livingston Louisiana Trial Court Number 86 964 Honorable M Scott M Emonet Douglas Hughes Judge Attorney for Plaintiff Appellee Baton Rouge LA Edward Jackson DeV an Pardue Springfield Attorney LA for Defendant Appellant Damon Miley A Wayne Stewart Livingston LA In Jasper Brock Livingston LA In Freeman R Matthews Attorney for New Orleans LA Intervenor Proper Person Defendant Appellee Proper Person Defendant Appellee Appellee Medical Center of Louisiana New Orleans BEFORE CARTER C J eJy PETTIGREW AND WELCH JJ at WELCH J In this judgment appeared or evidence plaintiff Miley appeals Edward Jackson for where neither the trial a testified plaintiff Instead various documents without proper authentication by an nor a damages totaling The judgment any other witness introduced and filed into were attorney purportedly representing plaintiff but who had previously intervened in the suit after being discharged by the plaintiff in does us Damon the defendant plus legal interest from the date of judicial demand rendered after was suit rendered in favor of the 32 950 00 the legal malpractice contain not damages we a a privilege for his basis for the trial reverse with dismissing order to assert the Because the record before factual s findings court and judgment of the trial the prejudice court fee on liability render or judgment plaintiff s claims against the defendant Damon Miley I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 12 1998 the as a plaintiff was involved in result of that accident he was attorney Francis A Touchetl however the professional plaintiff more than matter Associates one represent him in subsequently referred services for that Wayne Stewart 1999 was to allegedly injured Mr the 1999 petition for damages naming as the retained personal injuries a contract for A Miley of the law firm Miley filed the petition for July 27 plaintiff represented by attorney Peyton P Wayne damages on 2 commenced these defendants A Mr Touchet has since been disbarred 2 plaintiff initially and entered into with attorney Damon Law Firm Murphy of the Murphy automobile accident and action for year from the date of the accident On October 13 2d So The an to an proceedings by filing Stewart Damon See In Re Touchet 99 3125 a Miley and La 2 4 00 753 820 This suit caption was filed in the Edward Jackson 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton versus US Agencies Insurance Division H 2 Company et ai Rouge and bore Number 462 933 A Stewart Wayne Associates contracted with the defendants June 12 damages 3 In this suit handle his to 1998 motor vehicle accident fifteen plaintiff alleged that he personal injury case the As negligently from his arising that the defendants filed that suit for 4 days beyond the applicable prescriptive period defendants had acted malpractice the result of their a plaintiff contended that the defendants and therefore the alleged negligence were liable to or him for damages On August 18 2000 Mr malpractice suit alleging that he plaintiff discharged for the purpose of Murphy filed was him without continuing the malpractice settlement contract plaintiff between the Law Firm counsel for the plaintiff however the to assert plaintiff suit the on Therefore he no other attorney However rights and privileges any proceeds of ever enrolled as parties during which attorney Scott M Emonet represented the plaintiff Additionally inserts the plaintiff into the record of these This matter forth in his judgment any or was and status on behalf of conferences also of the Murphy proposed jury instructions on behalf of proceedings ultimately scheduled for a trial on the merits to be held beginning on the MONDAY By supplemental and amending petition Jasper S Brock IV another attomey with the law of A Wayne Stewart Associates was added as a defendant in this suit On January 8 2003 the 4 that he Mr Emonet filed several pre week of APRIL 3 2006 with final pre trial conference fiml set counsel of record the trial court conducted several trial memorandums pre trial 3 requested paid to the plaintiff Thereafter the with the Petition of Intervention in the and enlisted the services of other counsel cause be allowed to intervene in the suit employment original a plaintiffvoltmtarily dismissed his claims See La C C arts 3447 and 3492 3 against Mr Brock without prejudice APRIL 3 2006 at 1 00 p Miley requested scheduled in record does a s After the trial m United Stated District Court disclose the trial not however the minutes of the trial trial court On because continuance of the trial a court court issued the notice of trial Mr court his counsel had which the to s ruling on April on 3 a plaintiff objected 6 trial The the motion for continuance 2006 make it evident that the denied the motion April 3 appear for trial 2006 both the plaintiff and the defendant failed however Mr Emonet did appear that date the minutes of the trial court in this on matter behalf of the to personally plaintiff On reflect the following appearing on the Civil Pre Trial Docket this date Personally present in Open Court were counsel Scott M Emonet on behalf of the plaintiff Mr Emonet offered introduced and filed into This matter evidence offered Plaintiff Exhibit introduced and Medical emergency introduced and Records from 1 Petition and filed Services into evidence Records Mr contract Plaintiff Exhibit Mr Emonet filed into evidence Plaintiff Exhibit Charity Hospital Emonet Mr Emonet offered 2 offered 3 Medical introduced and filed into evidence Plaintiff Exhibit 4 Acadian Ambulance Records Mr Emonet offered introduced and filed into evidence Plaintiff Exhibit 5 Records from Earl K introduced and filed Long Hospital Mr Emonet offered into evidence Plaintiff Exhibit 6 Property Damage Mr Emonet offered introduced and filed into evidence Plaintiff Exhibit 7 Accident Report Mr Emonet stated total medicals 17 033 86 and his total are The court allowed counsels sic property damage is 30 thirty days to 2 950 00 file memorand a to the court On May 1 2006 involuntary dismissal appear at trial a Mr Miley filed a trial memorandum requesting of the plaintiff s claims since the plaintiff failed to motion and memorandum in support to disqualify an personally the Murphy 5 On June 5 2003 A Wayne Stewart and A Wayne Stewart Associates filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that there were no genuine issues ofmaterial fact as to the lack of an attorney client relationship between A Wayne Stewart and A Wayne Stewart Associates and the plaintiff In reasons for judgment dated June 23 2004 the trial court the motion granted for summary judgment Although the record before us does not contain a valid final judgment in accordance with the trial court s written reasons in this regard it appears that the only remaining defendant at the time ofthe trial on the merits was Mr Miley 6 A copy of the motion for a continuance is not contained in the record plaintiffs objection to the motion is contained therein 7 See La C C P art 1672 A l 4 however the Law Finn counsel for as by the plaintiff and basis that the exhibits On provided May as Law Firm had been intervenor in the objections was introduced into evidence and attorney fees plaintiff since the Murphy an on were properly not 9 plaintiff by the Murphy 8 authenticated and a to the exhibits Law Firm 2006 the trial court issued written reasons on the motion for sanctions Law Firm for their conduct in this against the Murphy case for judgment which follows In this matter on behalf of the matter discharged June 12 plaintiff plaintiff 1998 involved in plaintiff was There and defendant was an attorney client relationship between Suit filed by Miley on behalf of on July 27 1999 after the prescriptive period Therefore the prescriptive period had passed negligent representation since applies Defendant Miley is found to be liable Thereafter the trial Miley automobile accident an court awarded the was plaintiff damages as Medical expenses 16 505 22 Motor Cycle 2 950 00 As to general damages applying relevant in this the case Further court A written signed on May 8 9 30 2006 trial as law the facts to 50 000 00 well as all court costs judgment in conformity Law Firm Law Firm and at as 9 involuntary dismissal Murphy awards case plaintiff is awarded legal interest from the date of judicial demand the follows Mr plaintiff s counsel for the By judgment signed ruling of the Miley timely moved for of the again objecting with this to on claims plaintiff the 30 trial was again seeking disqualification and sanctions the evidence submitted September a new trial court of the against the Murphy by the Murphy 2006 the trial court Law Firm granted Mr See La C E arts 901 and 902 The trial court May 30 2006 judgment are silent as involuntary dismissal objections to the evidence motion to disqualify the Murphy Law Firm and motion for sanctions When a judgment is silent as to a claim or demand it is presumed that the trier of fact denied the relief sought See Caro v Caro 95 0173 p 7 La App 1st Cir 10 6 95 671 2d So 516 520 Accordingly we conclude that the to the s May 9 2006 written reasons defendant s motion for trial court denied such requests 5 and the Miley motion for new trial s In subsequent modified its for reasons judgment dated October previous damage award for medical 25 2006 the trial court expenses to reflect 0010 and modified its previous general damage award 10 000 reflect to of 20 000 00 A written judgment in conformity with the trial this regard signed November 28 2006 and it is from this Mr Miley has appealed was on existence of legal malpractice attorney client relationship an 2 attorney and 3 loss caused by that negligence 9 La 121 04 864 So 2d 129 each of these elements 2004 2204 p 2006 0615 11 In this the plaintiff Wayne a Stewart on ruling in s judgment that negligent representation by the Costello v Hardy 2003 1146 p bears the burden of Herman Katz Cotlar 927 So 2d 1178 Failure 1 the must prove proof of L L P 1184 writ denied to prove anyone of these elements See Costello 2003 1146 pp 9 12 864 So 2d 129 138 139 for copy of by Mr Miley 930 So 2d 27 plaintiff a plaintiff Herman v uncertified documents Report The the plaintiff s claims case following Accident Gibson La 5 26 06 is fatal to the claim 138 15 App 4th Cir 2 06 La award LAW AND DISCUSSION claim for a court an 11 II To establish award of an a a motor contract Associates a against the defendant copy of vehicle accident for a were based solely on Uniform Motor Vehicle Traffic on June 12 1998 involving the professional services between the plaintiff and A by Mr Miley behalf of the plaintiff on a July copy of 27 a petition 1999 in the for damages filed 19th Judicial District 10 It appears that some ofthe medical expenses originally sought by the plaintiff at trial and thereafter awarded by the trial court included expenses for the delivery of a baby the plaintiff is and expenses pre dating the June 12 1998 accident subsequently concluded were not applicable to this case a male and therefore as the trial court II Although the trial court specifically denied Mr again silent motion to as to the defendant disqualify the s Murphy motion for Law Firm conclude that the trial court denied such motions for involuntary dismissal judgment is dismissal objections to the evidence involuntary and motion for sanctions and therefore we again and for sanctions in its October 25 2006 written requests 6 Miley s reasons the November 28 2006 See footnote 9 Court and copies of medical bills and records for the find this We malpractice against evidence Mr insufficient to plaintiff prove the 12 plaintiff s claim for Miley While the plaintiff may have arguably established attorney client relationship between the plaintiff and Mr Miley in order an succeed in his claim for Mr Miley was other words the plaintiff for to assert motor vehicle plaintiff failed to do on see La demonstrating on his claims for Based prescription testified CC arts 12 In Mr 27 901 1094 Cir Miley s petition for damages it there is no The record does matter And neither the loss In action in s 12 1998 find that the we appears that Mr Miley evidence in this record to assert not contain plaintiff nor on his claims a judgment the basis of any other witness plaintiff s suit for personal injuries had been dismissed fourth assignment of error they whereby something is a process Resources Inc 14 2 a that plaintiff a loss of the the evidence in the record 97 691 v 2d So erroneously not properly authenticated writ denied 208 211 Because authentication of evidence is he contends that the trial court or We agree shown to be what it purports to be La C E McLennan of Louisiana Inc 96 0935 p 5 Marsh that is not authenticated does not constitute Roy that Mr 1999 caused the 3447 and 3492 otherwise Miley Newpark App 1st La to prove personal injuries arising from the June admitted these exhibits into evidence because art to prove plaintiff s claims in his personal injury suit or Authentication is required plaintiff actually lost the opportunity trial that the at also beyond the prescriptive period allowed for the plaintiff s that the the required July on the face of the against the defendants in that dismissing was so may have filed suit claims still was damages accident Although plaintiff negligent and that this negligence caused the plaintiff filing the petition opportunity the malpractice to 97 0691 La 4 25 97 692 admissibility an were condition a precedent 2d So exhibit art 901 A Price v 2004 0227 p 8 La App 1st Cir 27 4 05 915 So 2d 816 822 La 127 06 922 So 2d 543 The documents submitted by Mr Emonet competent evidence to La C E O Martin Lumber Co writ denied 2005 1390 in this did not or the qualify as self authenticating documents pursuant to La C E arts 902 904 plaintiff was required to present evidence sufficient to support a finding that documents were what the plaintiff claimed they were See La C E art 901 A Louisiana case 905 Thus the Code ofEvidence article 901 B includes a non exclusive list ofmethods that may be utilized to authenticate evidence The record before us does not contain any evidence offered by the to authenticate the documents submitted into evidence Thus we find that the plaintiff documents offered notwithstanding grounds as this by Mr error Emonet at trial we were not However properly authenticated s warranted on other judgment find reversal of the trial court discussed herein 7 that a defendant in that suit failure plaintiff s to prove raised the issue of prescription ever this essential element malpractice against Mr determined that Mr Miley was liable legal malpractice Moreover we Miley find that its absent a we hereby the plaintiff s reverse is court awarding damages plaintiffs claims and or 14 in favor of the judgment of the plaintiff Therefore trial court and dismiss 15 CONCLUSION foregoing hereby his claim for imposition of liability it follows that against Mr Miley with prejudice For the above and to plaintiff for negligent representation judgment was clearly wrong III the trial the to the November 28 2006 claims fatal Thus the Because the trial court concluded otherwise factual basis for the the trial court also erred in was 13 reasons reversed and the November 28 2006 is judgment rendered judgment dismissing of the against Mr Miley with prejudice All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff appellee Edward Jackson REVERSED AND RENDERED 13 14 error 15 See La C C P art 927 La C C art 3452 A trial court clearly s factual determinations wrong standard See Stobart Because of our assignments disposition herein are v we reviewed by an appellate State DOTD 617 pretermit of error 8 2d So court under the manifest 880 882 La 1993 discussion of the Mr Miley s remaining
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
