GOLD DUST GRAPHICS, INC. VS DOUGLAS DIEZ

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2006 CA 0323 1 LJ GOLD DUST GRAPHICS INC iI t VERSUS DOUGLAS DIEZ Judgment Rendered December 28 2006 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Case No 484 819 The Honorable Janice Clark Judge Presiding Joseph P Brantley IV Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff1 Appellee Malcolm J Counsel for DefendantlAppellant Dugas Jr Donaldsonville Louisiana Gold Dust Douglas Graphics Inc Diez and Dwight D Poirrier Gonzales Louisiana BEFORE KUHN GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ GAIDRY J This is appeal of an action asseIied in between the civil action a parties for the appeal summary arising from We conclude that the improperly designated the partial a as on one partial appeal contract judgment summmy of cause advertising services an final for purposes of following judgment was and therefore dismiss reasons FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The defendant Gold Dust plaintiff appellee company to Diez appellant Douglas Inc Graphics engaged the services Gold Dust a graphic design provide advertisements and other promotional material for benefit of Pelican Point Golf Community in Ascension Parish written of March contract 103 960 00 to be and In turn 2000 13 8 663 00 from Gold Dust agreed to provide a monthly an April initial 1 to pay the expense I The total a deposit 2000 to act as Mr purchasing agent for advertisement regard and provided for paid by Mr Diez through monthly payments of 2001 of the of the parties budget of 17 326 67 1 through February Diez media agent and s ongoing report with expenses in that tear sheets to Mr Diez Mr Diez paid the initial deposit and the first monthly payment but stopped payment Gold Dust on the check through its attOlney representing sent a represented by the check pursuant to letter claiming that the second demand letter for La R S 9 2782 2 provided Gold Dust had no monthly payment payment of the Mr Diez information sum replied by and no accounting of payment of expenses On July petition for I Mr Diez a was development 21 2000 Gold Dust instituted the money the and judgment developer golf present action by filing a in the 21st Judicial District COUli for the of Pelican Point Golf Community course 2 a residential real estate Parish of check It Livingston demand letter in a mail by ceIiified more demand letter and Mr Diez no and comi costs Mr Diez than 30 twice the by the amending petition setting alleging that substantial out the receipt Gold Dust therefore of the check attorney s of its by filing venue thereupon filed particulars alleged that a a of the alleged s fees contract work Mr Diez was was declinatory supplemental of the contract monetary budget due balance of the contract s the sent to him was from the on statute Gold Dust portion It further Parish Livingston unpaid a La R S 9 2782 2 amount the action to objected stopped payment days had elapsed exception raising that objection and Diez payment had been made authorized as Mr compliance with to it for liability s alleged that s terms and performed in liable for the entire to his breach of the contract On Diez s the 21st Judicial District Comi sustained Mr May 23 2001 declinatOlY exception and ordered this action transfened Judicial District COUli for the Parish of East Baton 2001 Mr Diez denying any On judgment 9 2782 2 filed his answer to Gold Dust May 18 2005 Gold Dust filed on its claim for The motion damages attorney was heard by a s motion for fees and the trial court of counsel the trial court granting the motion No reasons for the purpose of appeal new was trial petition the 19th On June 20 as amended liability Following the argument regard s Rouge to signed was on were October 3 for on patiial costs summary under La R S September expressed its 19 2005 reasons for determining the finality of the judgment stated 2005 denied 3 The tlial Mr Diez cOUli s s judgment in that subsequent motion for Mr Diez then instituted this this issued court briefs court why the appeal should s judgment 1915 B or designation signed no order that the an an just that the for the and delay for purposes of appea1 cause as judgment an to within 30 cause the on final the record that it made stating order designated parties finality of of reason not was parties show be dismissed not On March 15 2006 suspensive appeal days by grounds that the trial pursuant to La C CP art supplemented with such be On the same date the trial a court express determination that there was as final a ordering its prior judgment designated final 3 DISCUSSION A judgment that determines the merits in whole La judgment appealable C C P is determined Whether 1841 mi by examining a pmiial final 1915 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915 B when a court renders a than all of the claims that judgment is is designated that there is no demands final just 1113 2 Inc or for theories an court This delay as to 1 provides that one or more presented immediate after an art in but less an action unless it appeal express determination provision attempts to strike a undesirability of piecemeal appeals and the need for making review available Messinger issues judgment by the reason balance between the RJ summary judgment final for the purpose of not as a pmiial judgment is of La C C P requirements the in pmi is or v at a time that best serves Rosenblum 04 1664 p the needs of the 13 La 3 2 05 pmiies 894 So 2d 1122 Gold Dust also contends in its brief that the trial comi cOlmnitted error in failing to award it reasonable attorney fees under La RS 9 2 2782 A and a service charge under La R S 9 2782 B Not having perfected its own appeal nor having timely answered Mr Diez court 3 s s appeal Gold Dust judgment See La The trial comi s order is precluding from complaining about any aspect of the trial C C P art 2133 A was inadvertently dated 4 March 15 2005 In the cited designation of finality by explicit an 1915 B ati or ceIiification need cOUli held that the include not nor for the determination that there is reasons delay in order for C C P the Louisiana supreme case appeal to be taken from However ideally should provide such the cOUli a 13 894 So 2d the certification was App La we RJ proper Motorola judgment we are Inc delay as well RJ required making the determine de to novo 1664 at pp Messinger 04 nor its Corp 894 Motorola 867 So 2d 723 732 the other non The In between the such So 2d at 1122 02 1351 II 16 p conducting this review exclusive criteria trial relationship for reasons whether the certification 13 14 determination of whether certification is 1 04 Messinger subsequent order overriding inquiry of whether there is as under La the standard of review so provided explicit final as 1st Cir 10 22 03 consider the for that the trial court emphasized judgment s Associated Indemnity v reason at 1122 Because neither the trial court certifying just no of its certification is whether it abused its discretion 1664 at p accompanied partial judgment and if it does reasons be required no just courts reason should for use in appropriate adjudicated and the unadjudicated claims 2 might The possibility not be mooted 3 obliged to The by future developments in possibility consider the 4 that the need for review that the same issue a reviewing might or the trial court cOUli might be second time and delay economic and solvency considerations shortening the time of trial frivolity of competing claims expense and the like RJ Messinger The Miscellaneous factors such 04 1664 at pp patiia1 summary as 13 14 894 So 2d at 1122 judgment at claim under La R S 9 2782 2 related 5 to issue determined the check as only opposed Gold Dust s to its claim for breach of the relevant for our The underlying primary obligation portion of the statute provides purposes Whenever any drawer of a check stops payment on the check with the intent to defraud or when there is no justifiable A dispute as to the amount owed or obligation the drawer shall be liable to as defined in R S 10 3 302 of such holder for in or a person the holder in due a subrogated damages of twice the of existence amount to so the course the rights owing but less than one hundred dollars plus attorney fees and costs if the drawer fails to pay the obligation created by no case cOUli the check within thiIiy days after receipt of written demand for payment thereof substantially in the form provided for in Subsection C which notice is delivered by ceIiified or registered mail Emphasis supplied Pretermitting the merits conclude that the trial court of the ceIiification of the s improper The issue of whether there was existence of the if not to or was justifiable dispute as Thus there is serves clearly a close There is the needs of the at 1122 suggesting Finally that a and should take the to relationship nothing in the pmiies or precedence and economy of appeals over that other impOliantly there at p are no unjust such that immediate appeal principles of sound judicial administration 4 It is well settled that dismissed unless the the most this at delay in appellate review until final determination of all issues would be n appeal urgent circumstances exist See R J Messinger 04 1664 894 So 2d circumstances See for suggest that the appeal of the pmiial summary judgment compelling 4 judgment adjudicated and unadjudicated claims stage of the proceedings best 13 we related to the issues of breach of contract under the pmiies reciprocal obligations record a judgment obligation underlying the issuance of the check is closely inextricably between the summary partial appeals reason for are favored in the law and should doing 2 supra 6 so is free from doubt not be Fraternal Order of Police So 2d 897 appeals 899 900 must pp 2 4 City of New Orleans 02 1801 v with the law properly compOli well settled s 13 at p 894 So 2d See R J economical favored In other words at 1122 favored but 11 8 02 831 is that however Implicit in that general principle multiplicity of appeals and piecemeal litigation 1664 La policy against Messinger 04 economy of appeals is are not impropriety of the celiification is apparent from the appeals are piecemeal appeals favored Because record and no absence of any cOUli the deference is due the trial assigned would now serve no 894 So 2d at 1122 trial elTed in court reasons As we summary have determined not 17 at p constitute may be revised rendition of the judgment 1915 B See R J certification a 04 1664 at p Messinger as final given the per curiam from the trial de final 867 So 2d by the trial adjudicating a s on our designating the judgment judgment does appeal and thus request for purpose Motorola II 02 1351 appeal a court novo at review that the must we 733 time all issues and claims dismiss this The judgment for court at any 14 pmiial purposes of prior to La C C P the ali 2 DECREE The The costs appeal of the defendant appellant Douglas Diez is dismissed of appeal are assessed to the parties in equal APPEAL DISMISSED 7 proportions

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.