MARY PHYLLIS SOILEAU VERSUS SMITH'S TRUE VALUE RENTAL, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CM 09-1233 MARY PHYLLIS SOILEAU VERSUS SMITH'S TRUE VALUE RENTAL, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 69770-B HONORABLE THOMAS F. FUSELIER, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** J. DAVID PAINTER JUDGE ********** Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Jimmie C. Peters, and J. David Painter, Judges. MOTION TO DISMISS UNLODGED APPEAL DENIED. James Michael Percy Stafford, Stewart & Potter Post Office Box 1711 Alexandria, LA 71309-1711 (318) 487-4910 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: DEERE AND COMPANY JOHN DEERE LIMITED Richard Joseph Petre, Jr. Onebane Law Firm Post Office Drawer 3507 Lafayette, LA 70502-3507 (337) 237-2660 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: SMITH S HARDWARE W. Glenn Soileau Jacques P. Soileau Soileau Law Office Post Office Box 344 Breaux Bridge, LA 70517 (337) 332-4561 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Mary Phyllis Soileau Steven J. Bienvenu Falgoust, Caviness & Bienvenu Post Office Box 1450 Opelousas, LA 70571 (337) 942-5811 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT Karen Day White Louisiana Municipal Association 700 North 10th Street, Ste 440 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 (225) 334-5001 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: TOWN OF MAMOU PAINTER, Judge. Plaintiff-appellee filed a motion to dismiss the unlodged appeal in this suit on the basis that the judgment of which appellate review is being sought requires designation pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915. This court previously granted the writ application filed by defendants-appellants, docketed in this court under number CW-09-1066, for the sole purpose of consolidation with the appeal to be lodged in this court. Because part of the judgment at issue is immediately appealable under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A)(6) and because any interlocutory rulings have now been consolidated with the appeal to be lodged in this court, we deny the plaintiff s motion to dismiss. The judgment at issue, signed on August 3, 2009, grants the plaintiff s motion to compel and for contempt and sanctions. In so doing, the trial court found that the defendants were in contempt of a previous court order compelling discovery; ordered the defendants to produce, within ten days of the date of judgment, all information omitted in violation of the previous court order compelling discovery; ordered certain facts amounting to liability deemed admitted as sanctions under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1471; and ordered the defendants to pay $15,000 in attorney fees and $10,000 in expenses in discovery sanctions pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1471. On August 10, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for appeal of the abovedescribed judgment. The trial court signed the order granting the appeal on August 12, 2009. Thereafter, the defendants also filed a notice of intent to seek supervisory writs of the same judgment and subsequently filed a writ application with this court, docketed under number CW-09-1066. This court granted the instant writ for the sole purpose of consolidating it with the appeal to be lodged with this court. 1 We find that the judgment at issue is immediately appealable as to the ruling granting the plaintiff s motion for contempt and sanctioning the defendants. This court has held that judgments imposing sanctions are immediately appealable. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A)(6); Corbello v. Isle of Capri Casino, 04-1633 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/12/05), 892 So.2d 149. The judgment also grants a motion to compel. While generally this is a judgment only to be reviewed under this court s supervisory jurisdiction, this court found that in the interests of judicial economy and justice, review of the entire judgment should await lodging of the record and briefing by the parties on the pending appeal. Accordingly, we find that the judgment is properly before this court on appeal, and we deny the plaintiff s motion to dismiss. MOTION TO DISMISS UNLODGED APPEAL DENIED. This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rules 2-16.2 and 2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal. 2
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.
