Leonard Cardenas, III, Individually and On Behalf of His Minor Children Cade Leonard Cardenas and Cavan Michael Cardenas VS James L. Moore
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 CA 1536 LEONARD CARDENAS III INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILDREN CADE LEONARD CARDENAS and CAVAN MICHAEL CARDENAS VERSUS JAMES L MOORE Judgment Rendered JUL 18 2012 On Appeal from the 18th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Pointe Coupee State of Louisiana Docket No 41 Division D 435 The Honorable William C Dupont Judge Presiding Nathan P Fry Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Appellants Leonard Cardenas III individually and on behalf of his minor children Cade Leonard Cardenas and Cavan Michael Cardenas Guy Wall Counsel for Appellee Sara Lewis James L Moore New Orleans Louisiana BEFORE CARTER GAIDRY AND HUGHES JJ HUGHES J This is an appeal from a judgment of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court that sustained an exception of res judicata granted a motion for summary judgment on the same basis and dismissed the claims of plaintiffappellant Leonard Cardenas III against defendantappellee James Moore For the following reasons we reverse and remand for further proceedings FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On January 17 2007 Mr Cardenas and his exwife Ms Belinda Moore Patin Cardenas Belinda entered into a stipulated judgment in the Family Court for East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court wherein the parties were awarded joint custody of their two minor children with Mr Cardenas designated the domiciliary parent Belinda was given supervised visitation every other weekend from Friday to Sunday Pursuant to the judgment if Belinda was unable to exercise her visitation her family could exercise her visitation on her behalf On Friday December 28 2007 Belinda father Mr James Moore s was visiting with his grandchildren at his home in Pointe Coupee Parish pursuant to his daughter visitation rights as set forth in the January 17 s 2007 judgment According to the visitation schedule Mr Moore was to return the children to Mr Cardenas on Sunday December 30 2007 at 7 clock m o p However Mr Moore refused to return the children until Tuesday January 1 2008 On January 8 2008 Mr Cardenas filed a rule to terminate visitation naming Belinda as defendant 1 The rule was based on multiple alleged Although the judgment refers to Belinda time with the children as visitation the time s parents with joint legal custody share with their child is more properly described as a physical 2 violations of the January 17 2007 judgment by both Belinda and Mr Moore In response Mr Moore and his wife filed a petition for intervention seeking joint custody ofthe minor children or in the alternative increased visitation A hearing was held and the court rendered an interim judgment signed on March 10 2008 wherein the court set visitation for Mr Cardenas smotion for Belinda and the Moores The court continued Mr Cardenas contempt and rule to terminate visitation rights On August 21 2008 Mr Cardenas filed a motion to render the interim judgment partially null requesting that the visitation granted to the Moores in the interim judgment be terminated Thereafter on a January 19 2011 a judgment was signed vacating the interim judgment and dismissing with prejudice the Moore petition for s intervention and Mr Cardenas rule to terminate visitation and motion to s render the interim judgment partially null On April 1 2008 Mr Cardenas filed a petition for damages in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court District Court alleging claims for damages as a result of Mr Moore sactions in refusing to return the children Specifically Mr Cardenas alleged that he had suffered damages including mental anguish and emotional distress as a result of Mr Moore criminal s actions during the period from December 30 2007 to January 1 2008 In response Mr Moore filed objections raising the exceptions of res judicata and no cause of action Mr Moore contended that a valid final judgment had been rendered by the Family Court which precluded Mr Cardenas from relitigating the claims Mr Moore also filed a motion for summary custody allocation of a joint custody plan rather than visitation See Cedotal v Cedotai 05 1524 La App 1 Cir 4927 So 433 436 05 11 2d 3 judgment alleging that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether Mr Cardenas was barred by res judicata A hearing was held on April 20 2011 The court rendered judgment in favor of Mr Moore sustaining the exception of res judicata granting the motion for summary judgment on that basis and dismissing Mr Cardenas s claims with prejudice Mr Cardenas appeals and makes the following assignments of error clearly wrong and committed reversible error by granting the defendant Exception of Res s Judicata and Motion for Summary Judgment 1 The trial court was 2 The trial court was clearly wrong and committed reversible error by failing to recognize Mr Cardenas scause of action in tort 3 LAW AND ANALYSIS Res judicata is governed by LSAR 13 which states that S 4231 Except as otherwise provided by law a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties except on appeal or other direct review to the following extent 1 If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment Mr 2 Moore filed exceptions raising the objections of res judicata and no cause of action and also reurged the same exceptions in the form of a motion for summary judgment arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether Mr Cardenas claims were barred by s res judicata or as to whether Mr Cardenas had a valid cause of action In the court oral reasons s for judgment the trial judge is clear that his ruling was based on his finding that Mr Cardenas s claims had been litigated to final judgment in the Family Court proceedings and were thus barred by res judicata THE COURT m I ruling basically on what he has set forth in here that the matter has already been handled in the East Baton Rouge case and those judgments over there terminating those Rules for Contempt and all but the prejudice seems to be a res judicata of these issues MR FRY Do you want to rule now on the other elements the no cause of action THE COURT Idon need to I don need to t t As previously stated the trial court judgment ruled only on the exception of res judicata and s summary judgment urging res judicata No ruling on the exception of no cause of action was made and therefore we will not address this assignment of error 4 2 If the judgment is in favor of the defendant all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action 3 A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive in any subsequent action between them with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that judgment Emphasis added This statute explicitly applies only when there is a valid and final judgment between the parties Official Comment d 1990 to LSAR S 4231 13 explains the requirement of a valid and final judgment stating in pertinent part To have any preclusive effect a judgment must be valid that is it must have been rendered by a court with jurisdiction over subject matter and over parties and proper notice must have been given Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties and to grant the relief to which they are entitled LSAC art P C 1 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine a particular class of actions or proceedings based upon the object of the demand the amount in dispute or the value of the right asserted LSA C art 2 A judgment rendered by a court that P has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or proceeding is void LSACart 3 P C Pursuant to Article V 16 of the Louisiana Constitution district courts are courts of general jurisdiction and have original jurisdiction of all civil and criminal matters while the Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction created by the legislature as authorized by Article V 18 of the constitution which provides that juvenile and family courts shall have 5 jurisdiction as provided by laws In LSS 13 the legislature AR 1401 specified the limitations ofthe jurisdiction ofthe Family Court as follows A There is hereby established the family court for the parish of East Baton Rouge which shall be a court of record with exclusive jurisdiction in the following proceedings 1 All actions for divorce annulment of marriages claims for contributions made by one spouse to the education or training of the other spouse establishment or disavowal of the paternity of children spousal and child support and custody and visitation of children as well as of all matters incidental to any of the foregoing proceedings including but not restricted to the issuance of conservatory writs for the protection of community property the awarding of attorney fees in judgments of divorce the cumulation of and rendering executory of spousal and child support the issuance of writs of fieri facias and garnishment under judgments of the court for spousal and child support and attorney fees jurisdiction of which was vested in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the parish of East Baton Rouge prior to the establishment of the family court for the parish ofEast Baton Rouge a 2 All actions between spouses or former spouses for partition of community property and property acquired pursuant to a matrimonial regime b All actions for the termination or modification of a matrimonial regime c All actions for the settlement and enforcement of claims arising from matrimonial regimes or the establishment thereof d All actions between former spouses seeking the enforcement of a judicial or contractual settlement of claims provided in this Subsection 3 All proceedings for writs of habeas corpus for the determination and enforcement of rights to the custody of minors or for the release of any person in actual custody in any case of which the family court has original jurisdiction B The family court for the parish of East Baton Rouge has all such additional jurisdiction power and authority now or hereafter provided by law In his District Court petition Mr Cardenas seeks compensation for the damages he sustained as a result of Mr Moore alleged intentional s 4 Louisiana Revised Statutes 13 was subsequently amended by Acts 2010 No 754 Section 1401 2 effective January 1 2011 to insert and nonsupport in paragraph A However the 1 A tortious acts case Mr Cardenas argues that res judicata is inapplicable in this asserting that the Family Court does not have subject jurisdiction over his civil action matter Mr Moore however contends that because Mr Cardenas sclaim for damages arose out ofthe same transaction or occurrence iMr Moore refusal to return the children timely that e s was the subject matter of his rule to terminate visitation the judgment dismissing those pleadings with prejudice bars any subsequent suit thereon Mr Moore further alleges that Mr Cardenas scivil action is incidental to the Family Court child custody and visitation proceedings and thus within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Family Court The portion of LSA R 13 that might provide the Family Court S 1401 subject matter jurisdiction over Mr Cardenas claim is found in Section s 1 A and states All actions for divorce annulment of marriages claims for contributions made by one spouse to the education or training of the other spouse establishment or disavowal of the paternity of children spousal and child support and custody and visitation of children as well as of all matters incidental to any of the foregoing proceedings Emphasis added Thus the issue before us is whether Mr Cardenas sdistrict court tort action is incidental to the custody and visitation proceedings of the Family Court Incidental is defined as s to something of greater ubordinate importance having a minor role 999 1 Thus the s Black Law Dictionary 765 7 ed t statute states that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions for custody and visitation of children as well as over all matters subordinate to or having a minor role in the custody and previous version applicable at the time of the filing of this lawsuit is used in this opinion 7 visitation proceedings Considering the language of the constitution and the statute the laws regarding the Family Courts jurisdiction are clear and unambiguously establish that family courts only have jurisdiction over the minor matters relative to child custody or visitation proceedings When a law is clear and unambiguous and its appileation does not lead to absurd consequences the law shall be applied as written and no interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature further LSA C art 9 Mr Cardenas action for the damages he sustained as a result of Mr s s Moore alleged intentional tortious acts is not incidental to the child custody and visitation action between Mr contemplated by the statute Cardenas and Belinda as To hold otherwise would be to enlarge the limited jurisdiction of the Family Court beyond that specified by the legislature See Bovia ve Ledig 09 0900 La App 1 Cir 3 36 So 10 2 3d 287 288 wherein this courtt concluded that the Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the property partition of the parties former domicile where the parties had children but were never married even though the mother brought the partition proceeding against the father incident to the child custody and support proceedings between the parties We conclude that the petition of Mn Cardenas states a tort claim properly brought in the District Court and not a cause of action incidental to a custody and visitation matter in the Family Court While the same conduct may have given rise to incidental custody matters such as contempt of court and alteration of custody or visitation the Family Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear tort claims and is not empowered to s grant a valid judgment addressing such claims Thus Mr Cardenas tort claim cannot be barred by an exception of res judicata filed in the District 0 Court The trial court erred maintaining the exception of res judicata and in in granting summary judgment CONCLUSION The judgment of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court is reversed and this matter is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings All costs of this appeal are assessed to defendant Mr James L Moore appellee REVERSED AND REMANDED ifl
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.
