MOSKAU ACOUSTICS, INC. Vs. COMMUNITY CARE, L.L.C. D/B/A COMMUNITY CARE HOSPITAL C.E.M. GENERAL CONTRACTORS A/K/A CONSTRUCTION & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MOSKAU ACOUSTICS, INC. * NO. 2001-CA-1652 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL COMMUNITY CARE, L.L.C. D/B/A COMMUNITY CARE HOSPITAL C.E.M. GENERAL CONTRACTORS A/K/A CONSTRUCTION & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, LLC * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* APPEAL FROM FIRST CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS NO. 98-56842, SECTION “C” Honorable Sonja M. Spears, Judge ****** JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG JUDGE ****** (Court composed of Judge Joan Bernard Armstrong, Judge Patricia Rivet Murray and Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr.) PAMELA M. WIZA LEONARD L. LEVENSON 427 GRAVIER STREET THIRD FLOOR NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE LAUREN Z. GARVEY RICHARD A. AGUILAR McGLINCHEY STAFFORD 643 MAGAZINE STREET NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT AFFIRMED. This is a garnishment action. Moskau Acoustics, Inc. (“Moskau”) obtained a $5,150 judgment against C.E.M. General Contractors, L.L.C. (“C.E.M.”). Moskau then instituted the present garnishment proceeding against Community Care, LLC, (“Community Care”) seeking to seize any funds (up to $5,150) that Community Care owed to C.E.M. Community Care responded to Moskau’s garnishment interrogatories by denying that it owed any amounts to C.E.M. Moskau filed a rule to traverse Community Care’s answers to garnishment interrogatories. Following the trial of that rule, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Moskau and against Community Care. Community Care appeals. At trial, Community Care’s manager, Paul Kavanaugh, testified to the effect that there was a dispute between Community Care and C.E.M. as to whether Community Care owed any money to C.E.M. and that it was Community Care’s position that it did not owe any money to C.E.M. However, Moskau introduced deposition testimony of Mr. Kavanaugh, taken in another proceeding, in which Mr. Kavanaugh appears to state that Community Care was holding $30,000 that it owed to C.E.M. Community Care argued that Mr. Kavanaugh’s deposition testimony was being mischaracterized and that, in any case, Mr. Kavanaugh’s trial testimony should prevail. The proper characterization of Mr. Kavanaugh’s deposition testimony, and the weighing of it with his trial testimony, are issues of fact. Thus, the trial court’s decision cannot be reversed unless it is clearly wrong/manifestly erroneous. We have reviewed the deposition testimony at issue as well as the trial transcript. While reasonable minds might differ, we cannot see any clear error/manifest wrongness. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. AFFIRMED.
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.
