Janice M. Hornot VS Leonard Cardenas, III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2007 CA 1489 JANICE M HORNOT VERSUS LEONARD CARDENAS III Judgment Rendered JUN 2 0 Appealed from Me 008 L the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 534 772 Honorable William A Morvant H Baton Rouge Counsei for Plaintiff Appellant Shapiro LA Stephen Janice M Homot and J Rodney Baum LA Baton Rouge Scotty K Chabert Jr Henri M Saunders Baton Rouge Counsel for Defendant Appellee Leonard Cardenas III LA BEFORE WHIPPLE GUIDRY GAIDRY McCLENDON AND HUGHES 9 GUIDRY J This case arises former attorney for of out claim a documents defendant s pleadings personal injury client against her in any manner entitled was to the out of cause and her retum funds in in which defendant Leonard Cardenas attorney fees and to case to and for acts deposition transcripts Defendant attomey represented plaintiff designed anguish for fraudulent papers possession relating alleging that he a actions andor omissions alleged emotional and mental distress and of by pocket reconvened expenses in representation of plaintiff in the underlying personal connection with his injury action and that he was entitled to general and special damages for plaintiffs intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation of him Plaintiff appeals reconventional trial a court demands and pursuant to La Code Civ P judgment maintaining defendant s additionally imposing sanctions against her art 863 1 For the following reasons we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Janice Homot an occurred in March 1996 Leonard Cardenas Previously In was was her behalf and conducted I Plaintiffdoes not case appeal that an automobile accident that 2001 she contacted Mr represented by another accident attomey who filed suit on preliminary discovery accepting her obstacles in her in approximately October Mr Cardenas sent Ms Homot he discussed injured represent her in connection with that to Ms Homot attomey as which he a letter dated October 26 2001 in which a client pointed portion of the trial court out Despite acknowledging defendants would judgment 2 the many assuredly that dismisses all ofher claims use to their and legitimate materials Cardenas Mr advantage Mr Moreover discounted to willingness a expressed belief that her claims a represent her after Cardenas recent neurosurgeon that Ms Hornot had defense attomey asked the doctor extensive medical seen to deposition on two assume October 30 on of Dr Steven occasions certain As for extended an testified that he could in history the fact that she did complained way relate Ms Homot that Ms Hornot realistic and he not s expectations concerning requested that she give some a letter discussed the to Ms Hornot possibility of dated January no more 100 000 if than settlement demand of 2 He stated These obstacles as a were noted not 10 we push 185 000 00 the matter an seek medical the case Dr Bailey may not be to an matter Mr case Cardenas to pay up to He again He stated that but Mr Cardenas also addressed his I probably suggested making professional and personal courtesy and favor to Ms Cardenas raised Mr 2002 willing a the initially report serious consideration settling her personal injury believe that the insurance company may be Bailey symptoms of which she of money that she would accept in settlement of the In fee s the March 1996 automobile accident to concerns amount a to expected period of time With all the assumptions no 2001 things including injury in connection with this accident and that she did treatment accept contingency fee discuss the issues raised in the s to willingness a Mr Cardenas sent Ms Hornot another letter Hornot file thorough review of all a expressed were a proposed to you I am be I Reporting no injury to 2 Failing the investigating police officer to receive any medical attention or treatment for approximately fifteen months after the accident 3 Having two the other 4 5 intervening a rear accidents before receiving medical treatment one involving a fall and one month prior to her first medical visit following the end accident about subject accident An extensive preexisting medical history including prior cervical fusion and progressive nature of that condition and An apparent diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome prior to this accident 3 and the degenerative to willing reduce my fee requested that Ms Cardenas fee agreement were Homot acceptable settlement offer of a contingency sign and to her responding to Mr recovered amount date the letter if the strategy and 3 200 000 00 Cardenas verbal authority verbally agreed She also personal injury litigation the settlement offer Ms at that was not a interested in but would rather take the point was reluctant to Homot left for Mr Cardenas and she also felt that everyone In mediate her claims a case voice mail that she indicated that she would mediation unless the defendant would bear the entire ganging was up on cost not attend of the mediation In response to the her voicemail Mr CardenassentMs HomotaletterdatedMarch12 2002 Cardenas expressed increasing Ms Homot to her satisfaction did not settled at as him to more to come to filing a one Ms his office occasion Motion Ms Hornot neither to to days he would Ms Homot agreed Ms Hornot s Homot to execute disburse the settlement funds than to represent to withdraw from his attend the mediation personal injury claim was 95 000 00 After the mediation requests two her counsel the mediation for be able not Mr In that letter he advised Ms Homot that if he hear from her within with Mr Cardenas that he would concem representation of her Ultimately 3 to mediation Ms Hornot of to Thereafter Mr Cardenas advised Ms Hornot that fee of 17 5 the defense attomey in the to of the gross Hornot testified that she gave Mr Ms make to 17 5 essentially avoided the release and Cardenas receipt in order for Mr Cardenas wrote to Ms Homot inform her that defense counsel Enforce the Settlement and signed nor returned Mr the copy ofthe letter 4 was on in the process ultimately the motion was filed In correspondence to contact At him dated immediately trial or July 12 2002 Mr Cardenas he would withdraw Homot testified that Ms as counsel she felt coerced into mediation Ms Homot testified that relationship Mr Cardenas informed her that that there insurance fraud did not for some did not want to create Ms treatment twenty was talk or the was allegations distressed as from the effect that she in the accident have health insurance and not to to committed not allegations and felt that the never to the mediation there her into mediation and leverage to get her to but she constantly distressed Ms Homot testified that essentially settle the not committing accused her of she testified that she felt out to ascertain the basis for them leam that Mr Cardenas had allegation prior unsupported allegation looming pressured to arose medical condition for insurance purposes Cardenas himself had However of insurance fraud deposition mention of She also testified that she asked Mr Cardenas the insurance fraud insurance fraud a very concemed about the Ms Homot testified that she Mr Cardenas was although she knew that she had propound discovery conceming conceded that Mr in attending of the attomey client course injuries she allegedly sustained preexisting a mediation would be unfair about this the months because she did two insurance fraud she testimony for the Homot testified that investigated over against her by defense counsel This allegedly the fact that Ms Homot gave seek Ms Homot urged used the allegations case On the issue ofMr Cardenas entitlement to attomey fees in connection with his representation of testified that she did not her in the personal injury litigation feel that Mr Cardenas should be entitled Ms to collect legal fee because he breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing her by failing insurance fraud or refusing allegations to investigate andor clarifY the made against her 5 Homot source a towards of the Yet Ms Homot later testified that the 17 5 However it to acqUiescence Cardenas contingency fee permission was she reasonable and she had adamant that she was endorse the settlement check and to expressed never gave Mr deposit it into his trust account Conceming the allegation pleadings documents everything except Ms Homot et cetera her behalf someone on picked up her file Cardenas of Ms Hornot representation that when he first needed a begged him testimony lawyer met Mr honored that another attorney On the issue of an attorney would end up in the not a in retums mediation Mr participated a and he devastating explanation problematic to contract person position of having Mr and he Cardenas However never for case and this readily he was dreamed he fight for his attomey fees to Homot gave him express permlsslOn to deposit it into his trust account case treatment coupled with her unsatisfactory why she waited so long to voluntarily Mr Cardenas believed that in her best interest because the gap in medical her she thought crying and desperate and contract signed in the mediation and settled her was his Cardenas testified Cardenas testified that he believed that Ms Homot Mr and desperately wanted him to represent her sophisticated endorse the settlement check and mediation came testifY with to Cardenas further testified that he felt getting he testified that Ms Moreover unable pretty pitiful was contingency fee a admitted that he erred in dealing with so the or and it contained 2003 possession of her tax entirely different He testified that she case 8 was conceming Ms Homot she take her to was April she was ever in her papers to retum reluctantly conceded that she on Notably tax retums certainty whether Mr Cardenas Mr that Mr Cardenas failed seek medical or was suspicious treatment was Mr Cardenas testified that he did not believe that Ms Homot 6 would care a intentionally seek might insurer she to conceal her medical obtain but the condition would preexisting from whatever health that she did statement certainly history be utilized not want to create against her by any good defense attomey Moreover Mr insurance fraud Cardenas nor that he testified attomey simply stated that he intended explanation for lack of medical treatment against her insurance fraud that this whole that she thing dissatisfied with the was term her to use Mr Cardenas testified only after blew up the Mr Cardenas told Ms did the defense attomey Homot that the defense used never Ms Homot decided of the settlement reached amount at mediation Regarding was one of the the biggest testified that Ms Homot coups he had praised New Orleans and gave him Cardenas expressed Mr 95 000 00 settlement a shock and District Court in New Orleans accomplished ever him all the way back everything cause Cardenas testified that his him and that such disclose these to Ms Hornot filed a he made statements a Baton out lawyer He Rouge from of the Mr car 4 by the allegations made by harming her in his role reputation as an as two public lawsuits to office her attomey is allegations have caused him harm and him harm in the future if he seeks compelled 4 to as Ms Homot sued him in Civil dismay when Ms Homot that accused him of fraud and of Mr to big hug when she got Mr Cardenas testified that he felt defamed attomey Cardenas testified that this Moreover he will was the National Board of Trial previous suit against Mr Cardenas in Orleans Parish seeking declaratory judgment that accusing her ofconduct that was criminal or unethical or sanctionable Mr Cardenas defamatory The Honorable Ethel Simms alleging allegations Julien declined to issue declaratory judgment in favor of Ms Hornot and renderedjudgment for Mr Cardenas Ms Hornot appealed the damage award and Mr in the amount of 7 500 00 on the defamation claim Cardenas answered the appeal and claimed that he was entitled to a higher damage award The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed See Horoot v Cardenas 2006 1341 La App 4th Clr 1013 07 96 So 2d 7 9 Although the causes ofaction alleged in the instant suit are different the nature ofthe evidence and testimony elicited in the instant case and in the civil district court case appear to be virtually the same reconvened that the in her complaint 7 were Advocacy for certification purposes and money finance his to The trial Ms Hornot close to in her rendered judgment in favor of Mr Cardenas and finding without hesitation that Ms Homot did not burden of proof as to anyone of the Additionally the trial petition defamationS against Finally the trial court imposed Homot in the amount of of the financial institutions that lend him practice court carrying her claim of to pleading in this Ms allegations held that Mr Cardenas constituted a mere contained 20 000 00 La Code Civ P art 863 sanctions finding that the remotely proved his Homot and awarded him 10 000 00 matter court come against against Ms signing blatant violation of the and filing provisions of that article DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Ms Homot has Plaintiff s first three manifest was not sanctions in error hearing Logically we to was of allege that the trial error of conducted not will address new a sanctions She further hearing committed and because alleged plaintiff s remaining assignments appeal because she alleges the trial these on on court 863 sanctions art trial based error of court a erred deficiencies error first and discussion of Article 863 sanctions Continue Trial Ms Hornot alleges that the trial continue the trial because contacted would appear 5 assignments of La Code Civ P imposing her motion for return to a Motion assignments several given reasonable notice denying then in raised court erred in denying her motion to 1 she reasonably believed that an attorney that she to represent her The trial court found that the allegations clearly defamatory per se Moreover the petition constitutes publication 2 she contained in Ms Hornot s was prepared to go pleadings against Mr Cardenas were allegations were printed in the court held that the fact that the 8 not forward with trial continuance on a no of Civil Procedure article 160 I if there is case continuance La motion for a La continue has been granting an pleading every a continuance in the record appearing hire counsel just to as had enrolled judge as have the days prior continuance parties selected the trial date granted a at the fact that Ms Hornot waited not on as an a when trial a court good faith and a morning of trial based to exercise in due on year after even on Moreover on the record that trial Moreover she had noting that pretrial conference over a had Ms Hornot moved counsel ofrecord counsel of record for Ms Hornot not was two denied the motion would counsel case of twenty years excess counsel of record enroll this other attorney The trial v writ denied 502 So 2d Yet Ms Hornot admitted she authority a Soaracello court diligence are attomey practicing law in not to granted Therefore under this article Among the factors requested her trial counsel no continuance may be a App 1st Cir 1986 continuance of trial for the first time attempted Louisiana Code Id grounds Ms Hornot signed continuance a a counsel and 5 the secure new A trial court must look to the facts of each considers before reasonable that provides her first request for was within the sound discretion of the trial rests 1987 to prejudice by good ground therefor Andrews 501 So 2d 269 273 103 it 3 she needed additional time to 4 opposing party would suffer in any basis se pro the the on 6 if another attomey morning of trial he court noted that the August 22 2006 and filing her suit to try to obtain diligence 6 The trial judge placed a call to this attorney Mr Alexander who informed him that Ms Hornot had first contacted him twenty four hours previously concerning representation of her in this matter Mr Alexander signed a motion to enroll but told her not to file it until he had a chance to review the file After reviewing the file he made a decision not to represent Ms Hornot Mr Alexander advised that he communicated this both Ms Hornot and Mr Saunders counsel for Mr Cardenas Mr Alexander further advised that he trial in Iberville Parish that date and could not have been in East Baton Rouge Parish in any event 9 was to in The trial court continuance and its clear ruling will be disturbed not or denying discretion in denying find the trial we plaintiffs motion motion for a appeal in the absence on showing of an abuse of discretion Sparacello 501 So 2d the facts and circumstances herein on granting has great discretion in at did court 274 not of a Based abuse its for continuance Defamation Hornot Ms that the trial alleges allegations of her petition Defamation is her a 737 So 2d 706 defamation cause concerning another injury 559 Trentecosta or greater on to dealing with the harm the person false and the part of the Beck 96 2388 p person in the estimation of the or a 10 citing Restatement Second of Torts defamatory if it tends Tucker 98 2313 v unprivileged publication an v 1 are 2 La 558 or to to to a La a statement and 4 3 fault resulting 703 So 2d 552 10 21 97 1977 10 or establish third party publisher A communication is so as to deter others from citing Restatement p defamatory reputation of another community Id interest in his s person The elements necessary 715 of action requiring negligence Fitzgerald name a Cardenas Mr to se per that involves the invasion of tort reputation and good 6 29 99 defamatory were that the finding erred in court lower the associating Second of Torts 559 1977 In Louisiana defamatory words traditionally have been classified into two categories those that of defamatory meaning a 864 So 2d 129 criminal conduct 7 140 or are defamatory Costello Words that that by their v per se and those that are susceptible Hardy 2003 1146 p 13 La 121 04 expressly or implicitly very nature tend to accuse injure one s another of personal or Again we note that Ms Hornot has not appealed that portion of the trial court judgment that dismisses her finding that she did not come remotely close to carrying her burden of proof as to any of the claims claims made against Mr Cardenas 10 professional reputation circumstances surrounding of words that and malice falsity defendant fault or The element of injury may also be Defamatory words of another reputation community defamatory se per or When se a the elements but may be rebutted by the presumed Costello 2003 to element of so 1146 to associating Mr Cardenas in and of refusing a record public on their face are the words false and It is aside a trial clearly court findings Ferrell that the trial error protected by a Moreover the in defamatory suppressing The trial Moreover 745 we s court found court determined that that a court of appeal Fund Insurance Co Based clearly do not Ms Homot qualified privilege the truth for the truth Fireman was See potentially injure of fact in the absence of manifest court rejecting are an done with malice and intent and was legal principle v or Herein Ms Hornot accused of fraud of s on our wrong dishonesty and impute that unethically manifest disregard 650 So 2d 742 element of acted s wrong La 2 20 95 cannot say clearly this well established a disrepute at 716 with the person of the kind that could professional reputation with total and unfettered or pleading Mr Cardenas were harm the to Words that convey her file materials and her funds to return allegations 737 So 2d 11 p dealing or ridicule or contempt personal disgrace dishonesty at words that tend lower the person in the estimation of the to as deter others from Fitzgerald 98 2313 that such by definition are otherwise expose the person an are facts 13 14 864 So 2d at 140 at pp it is defamatory per presumed are extrinsic considering considered are plaintiff proves publication of without even Mr may not set error or unless 94 1252 p review of the record These words clearly Cardenas lacked 4 we convey integrity or committed find that the trial court argument that her allegations were Ms Homot contends that she cannot be 11 held liable for defamation for on her malice allegations made in good faith reasonable belief that they Freeman citing words here the record are true La and reasonable good faith basis for any of the were Cooper 414 So 2d 355 v on our that the trial cannot say we judicial proceeding based a Based court allegations made by s 1982 The was operative thorough review of finding that there Ms Hornot made without or was no factual wrong Quantum Louisiana Civil Code article 2324 1 In the assessment of offenses and judge The or to 17 10 the trier of fact is appropriate on great and even v a particular injury vast so Maritime Overseas Trial quasi be left damages is the to at having to a question Fontenot v It is an appellate court reasonable trier of fact could to the 1059 should assess in for particular plaintiff under the should increase reduce the court Corp of 2000 only when the award is 623 So 2d 1257 or 1261 127 L Ed 2d 379 La report the lawsuit to the 1993 1994 personally damaged he may have had may have been political aspirations expressed humiliation of that At trial Mr Cardenas testified that he felt any must In fact the discretion vested in 74 appellate denied 510 U S 1114 114 S Ct cert of offenses Wainwright general damages circumstances that the Youn amount review 774 So 2d 70 00 beyond that which the effects of the award of the award of an either direction particular cases much discretion contracts great deference La rarely disturb in damages jury assessment fact entitled 0492 p 6 quasi provides damaged and that He also National Board of Advocacy and his financial lenders The trial court determinations and of award of necessity left s damages largely affirm this award 12 to was based discretion on credibility Accordingly we Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 863 Sanctions With respect Ms Homot to the imposition alleges that the trial reasonable notice of a Code Civ P of La committed court hearing by failing to error conduct 863 sanctions art by not sanctions a affording her hearing and by denying her motion for new trial related to this issue Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 863 provides Every pleading of a party represented by an attomey shall be signed by at least one attomey of record in his A individual not name whose address shall be stated represented by A party who is attorney shall sign his pleading and an state his address B Pleadings affidavit need not be verified or accompanied by certificate except as otherwise provided by law but the signature of an attomey or party shall constitute a certification by him that he has read the pleading that to the or best of his knowledge information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact that it is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension modification or reversal of existing law and that it is not interposed for any to cause unnecessary the purpose such as to harass or needless increase in the cost of improper delay or litigation C If pleading is not signed it shall be stricken unless promptly signed after the omission is called to the attention of the a pleader upon its own motion the certification has been made in violation D If upon motion of any court ofthe determines that a party provisions of this Article the or court shall impose upon the person who made the certification or the represented party or both an appropriate sanction which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading including E A a reasonable attorney sanction s fee authorized imposed only after a hearing Paragraph at which any party counsel may present any evidence or the issue of imposition of the sanction or argument relevant be his to Emphasis added Paragraph D shall not be imposed with respect to an original petition which is filed within sixty days of an applicable prescriptive date and then voluntarily dismissed within ninety days after its filing or on the date of a hearing on the pleading whichever is earlier F A sanction authorized in D shall in 13 Under La Code Civ P there is a notice be denied no sanctions We have held however that due process Lee given Woodley 615 v 618 So 2d 411 writing and actual can However the article is silent with hearing first of notice 863 E art 1993 La 349 2d So be imposed unless respect that reasonable requires 352 App La Such notice would to the issue not 1 st have for the first time in Cardenas law we closing arguments 863 impose Article court to sanctions not file that he did In any Cardenas intent a matter to event even to pursue a when counsel for Mr Cardenas urged pleading assuming court against her to a full Mr Although specifically request Article by 863 Ms Homot had actual notice of Mr sanctions La Code Civ P for 8 prays for all relief allowed generally hearing before sanctions the trial III raised hearing before sanctions may be imposed afforded be to was sanctions reconventional demand note writ notice would be sufficient Id Ms Homot contends that the issue of Article 863 sanctions the Cir were 863 E art mandates We find that Ms Homot imposed therefore evidentiary hearing on we a was not remand this the issue of Article 863 sanctions CONCLUSION For the foregoing judgment denying plaintiff Ms we reasons Homot s affirm that motion in reconvention Leonard Cardenas for continuance Also pending before this Court is motion notes that the record on a matter court awarding is remanded The to the Supplement Record on Appeal filed by Ms Hornot The transcript of closing arguments which contains The motion seeks to supplement the record on appeal with the to supplement is granted Motion to appeal does argument concerning Article 63 sanctions transcript of closing arguments The motion and damages for defamation award of Article 863 sanctions is vacated and this 8 portion of the trial not include a 14 trial court assessed for a hearing equally to on the issue of sanctions The costs of this appeal are Janice Homot and Leonard Cardenas AFFIRMED IN PART VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL GRANTED 15
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.
