DARRYL DEAN Vs. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS (N.O.P.D.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION NO. 2008-CA-0730 * DARRYL DEAN * VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL * CITY OF NEW ORLEANS (N.O.P.D.) FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO. 07-6814, DISTRICT “EIGHT” Honorable Gwendolyn F. Thompson, Workers' Compensation Judge ****** Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr. ****** (Court composed of Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr., Judge Terri F. Love, and Judge Roland L. Belsome) Richard L. Seelman FONTANA SEELMAN & LANDRY, LLP 1010 Common Street Suite 2300 New Orleans, LA 70112 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE DARRYL DEAN 4250 EAST RENNER ROAD APARTMENT 2121 RICHARDSON, TX 75082 IN PROPER PERSON, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT JANUARY 14, 2009 APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT 1 Darryl Dean appeals the judgment of the district court granting the Appellee’s, the City of New Orleans’, exception of res judicata resulting in the dismissal of Mr. Dean’s case. We dismiss the instant appeal as moot. The facts of this case can be found in Dean v. City of New Orleans (NOPD, 2005-1347 (La. App. 4th Cir. 7/12/06), 936 So.2d851. In the instant appeal, Mr. Dean is before this court arguing that the district court erred in granting the City’s exception of res judicata because he alleges that he was on active deployment causing him to miss pertinent deadlines in the workman’s compensation case he filed in 2001 against the City. Mr. Dean failed to respond to the City’s discovery and although his case was dismissed with prejudice, he did not appeal and chose to file another claim with the Office of Workers’ Compensation revisiting the allegations in his first claim. Mr. Dean is now before this court on the same issue arising out of the same facts in Dean v. City of New Orleans (NOPD, 2005-1347 (La. App. 4th Cir. 7/12/06), 936 So.2d851, whereby this Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the City’s exception of res judicata. We find that this Court has previously ruled on the issues it finds that Mr. Dean attempts to allege rendering this appeal moot. Further Mr. Dean fails to comply with Rule 2-12, Uniform Rules of Court; which also mandates the dismissal of this appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT 3
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.
