JAMES B. BLAKE" CURETON VERSUS JAMES H. "JIMMY" CURETON AND CUSTOM METAL FABRICATORS, INC. " Vs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 20-520 JAMES B. “BLAKE” CURETON VERSUS JAMES H. “JIMMY” CURETON AND CUSTOM METAL FABRICATORS, INC. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2020-274 HONORABLE CLAYTON DAVIS, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** BILLY HOWARD EZELL JUDGE ********** ON REHEARING ********** Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, D. Kent Savoie, and J. Larry Vidrine*, Judges. GRANTED. _____________________ Honorable J. Larry Vidrine participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore. James A. Watson 3403 Patrick Street, Suite B Lake Charles, LA 70605 (337) 474-4886 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: James H. “Jimmy” Cureton Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. Todd Samuels Clemons Todd Clemons And Associates 1740 Ryan Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 477-0000 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: James B. “Blake” Cureton Timothy O’Dowd Jared W. Shumaker 924 Hodges Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 310-2304 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: James H. “Jimmy” Cureton Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. Richard Dale Moreno PO Box 149 Lake Charles, LA 70602-0149 (337) 433-9535 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: James H. “Jimmy” Cureton Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. Philip A. Franco Courtney C. Miller Jeffrey E. Richardson Kellen J. Mathews Adams and Reese, LLP 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500 New Orleans, LA 70139 (504) 581-3234 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: James B. “Blake” Cureton EZELL, Judge. We now grant a rehearing on the application of Plaintiff, Blake Cureton, as to whether he is entitled to attorney fees incurred in seeking an inspection of the Corporation’s records. We now affirm the trial court’s award of attorney fees insofar as it concerns Blake’s right to inspect corporate records. On rehearing, Blake brought to our attention La.R.S. 12:1- 140(9)(B)(emphasis added), which defines “expenses” in the Business Corporation Act as “reasonable expenses of any kind, including attorney’s fees and other litigation-related expenses, which are incurred in connection with a matter.” In our original opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering inspection of the Corporations’ records. Pursuant to La.R.S. 12:1-1604(C), once the court orders inspection of the records, the court “shall also order the corporation to pay the shareholder’s expenses incurred to obtain the order”. Since “expenses” are defined to included attorney fees, we find that Blake is entitled to an award of attorney fees against the Corporation in connection with his inspection of the Corporation’s records pursuant to La.R.S. 12:1-1604(C). The rehearing application of Blake Cureton is granted, affirming the trial court’s award of attorney fees as to the inspection of the Corporation’s records. GRANTED.
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.
