Tony Chaney VS New Orleans Private Patrol a/k/a Louisiana Private Patrol and Louis S. Gurvich, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CA 2077 TONY CHANEY VERSUS NEW ORLEANS PRIVATE PATROL AKA LOUISIANA PRIVATE PATROL AND LOUIS S GURVICH JR OWNER Judgment rendered June 8 2012 Appealed from the 19 Judicial District Court IY in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court No 601 571 Honorable William A Morvant Judge TONY CHANEY PLAINTIFF APPELLANT BATON ROUGE LA PRO SE JOHN W WATERS JR NEW ORLEANS LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS APPELLEES NEW ORLEANS PRIVATE PATROL A KA LOUISIANA PRIVATE PATROL AND LOUIS S GURVICH JR OWNER BEFORE PETTIGREW McCLENDON AND WELCH 33 PETTIGREW J In this case plaintiff Tony Chaney filed suit against his former employer New Orleans Private Patrol and Louis S Gurvich Jr collectively NOPP alleging that NOPP breached La R 23 by failing to pay him within three days after his last day of work S 631 and that NOPP improperly withheld 30 from his final paycheck He also made a claim 00 for penalties costs and attorney fees Although Chaney eventually conceded that he did not have a valid claim under La R 23 the parties disagreed about Chaney claim S 631 s arising from the 30 that NOPP withheld from his paycheck 00 According to the record the parties reached a settlement whereby on June 22 2011 NOPP offered to pay Chaney 30 and pay 383 in court costs incurred to 00 38 date in exchange for full and final settlement of all the claims asserted by Chaney in his petition On June 24 2011 Chaney accepted the offer in writing However once presented with the Motion to Dismiss and Release Agreement Chaney refused to comply responding in a July 7 2011 letter that the amount of the suit is 412 and that the 82 19th Judicial District Court has refused to consider dismissing this matter until payment is rendered Then on July 13 2011 Chaney filed a motion for default judgment against NOPP without any notice to NOPP After learning of the default proceedings NOPP immediately filed an answer to protect its rights Thereafter on August 2 2011 NOPP filed a Motion To Enforce Settlement And For Sanctions Chaney subsequently filed a motion to amend his petition seeking certification of class status for all employees adversely affected by the alleged illegal employment practices of NOPP These matters proceeded to hearing on September 12 2011 at which time evidence was introduced and the motion to enforce settlement was argued by the parties Referencing La Civ Code arts 3071 and 3072 the trial court found as follows ve I got a June 22 2011 offer to settle setting forth the terms of the settlement June 24 Mr Chaney responds in writing I agree to the stipulated terms As of that point you got a valid compromise and ve settlement reached by the parties to settle the matter for 30 plus court costs The Court is going to grant the motion to enforce the settlement The settlement will be resolved under the terms agreed to by the parties the 30 plus court costs as of the date of settlement I am not going to make the defendant responsible for the costs of filing the motion to enforce the settlement m I likewise going to decline your request for sanctions Fil against Mr Chaney I don think that his action rises to the level of either t 863 or any other sanctionable offense But I will order that this matter be compromised settled pursuant to the terms of the agreement and that the matter will be dismissed with prejudice Having done that the Court is going to deny any motion to amend because it is now moot based on the fact that this matter has been terminated by settlement agreement A judgment in accordance with the trial court findings was signed on September 29 s 2011 This appeal by Chaney followed The sole issue for our review is whether the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement between the parties In reviewing the judgment of the trial court we apply the manifest error standard of review The trial court made a factual determination that a contract existed between the parties when the court ruled on the motion to enforce settlement agreement Thus we apply the manifest error or clearly wrong standard Howard v Louisiana Citizens Property Ins Corp 2010 1302 pp 2 3 La App 4 Cir 11 27 4 65 So 697 699 3d Appellate courts review findings of fact made by the trial court judge using the manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong standard of review Rosell v ESCO 549 So 2d 840 844 La 1989 W there is conflict in the testimony reasonable evaluations here of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable Id Where there are two permissible views of the evidence the fact s finder choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong Id Louisiana Civil Code article 3071 provides A compromise is a contract whereby the parties through concessions made by one or more of them settle a dispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation or other legal relationship Louisiana Civil Code article 3072 provides A compromise shall be made in writing or recited in open court in which case the recitation shall be susceptible of being transcribed from the record of the proceedings Louisiana Civil Code article 3082 provides A compromise may be 1 On appeal Chaney also argues the merits of class certification As Chaney smotion to amend his petition was denied by the trial court and because we find no error by the trial court in its judgment granting the motion to enforce the settlement between the parties and dismissing with prejudice Chaney claims s against NOPP we need not reach the issue of class certification in the instant appeal 3 rescinded for error fraud and other grounds for the annulment of contracts Nevertheless a compromise cannot be rescinded on grounds of error of law or lesion According to the cited civil code articles and jurisprudence for a settlement agreement to be valid and enforceable it must either be recited in open court and capable of being transcribed from the record of the proceeding or be in writing and signed by the parties or their agents 96 8 4 671 So 315 317318 2d See Sullivan v Sullivan 95 2122 p 4 La Not only does the party seeking to nullify a settlement agreement bear the burden of proof but the law strongly favors compromise agreements between parties Courts will not invalidate such settlements absent a strong showing that they violate good morals or the public interest because of error bad faith or fraud City of Baton Rouge v Douglas 20071153 p 5 La App 1 Cir 2 984 So 746 749 writ denied 20080939 La 6 983 So 08 8 2d 08 20 2d 11 1 F Applying the law to the facts of this case we conclude that the agreement between the parties was a valid compromise which as correctly pointed out by the trial court was put in writing by the parties There is absolutely no evidence of bad faith fraud error or duress on the part of any of the parties the attorneys or the trial court We conclude that the record does not demonstrate that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in granting NOPP motion to enforce settlement Thus we affirm the trial s s court September 29 2011 judgment and issue this memorandum accordance with Uniform RulesCourts of Appeal Rule 2 16 0 in All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against plaintiff appellant Tony Chaney AFFIRMED opinion
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.
