The burden does not shift to the party opposing summary judgment until the moving party first presents a prima facie case that no genuine issues of material fact exist. If the court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists, summary judgment must be rejected. 966, a summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Standard of Review Appellate courts review the granting of summary judgment de novo under the same criteria governing the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Sanches had filed her petition for appeal. Sanches raises two (2) assignments of error: 1) the second city court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Capital One, and 2) the second city court erred in issuing a second final judgment on September 28, 2012, after the delays for a new trial had expired and after Ms. Sanches appealed the second judgment and filed a petition for nullity. The second city court issued a second judgment on September 28, 2012, pertaining to Capital One s motion for summary judgment. Sanches filed a Petition for Devolutive Appeal, which was granted by the second city court on September 25, 2012. Sanches account and granted Capital One s summary judgment on September 10, 2012. Nevertheless, the court ultimately held that the affiants were familiar with and had reviewed the business records for Ms. The second city court took her argument into consideration although it had not been briefed. Sanches argued that the affidavits submitted by Capital One in support of its motion for summary judgment were insufficient. A hearing was held on August 14, 2012, wherein Ms. 1 Capital One filed a second motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to compel discovery on May 15, 2012, which Ms. Sanches timely submitted her discovery responses. Sanches to answer the outstanding discovery within 30 days. The second city court denied Capital One s motion for summary judgment, but granted the motion to compel, ordering Ms. On January 10, 2012, Capital One filed a motion for summary judgment or in the alternative a motion to compel discovery. Sanches answered the suit, but did not raise any affirmative defenses therein. (“Capital One”), filed suit against Karen Sanches on September 21, 2011, for unpaid sums on her MasterCard account, ending in 2863. Facts and Procedural History Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. Pursuant to our de novo review, we reverse. Cusimano, III CUSIMANO LAW FIRM, PLC 631 St Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT REVERSED AND REMANDED JThe Appellant, Karen Sanches, seeks review of the September 10, 2012, judgment of the second city court granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee, Capital One Bank (USA) N.A., on an open account. Causeway Blvd., Suite 630 Metairie, LA 70002 Charles V. Etienne EATON GROUP ATTORNEYS, LLC 309 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70801 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Robert Angelle Rebecca Ann Rena Coman Attorney at Law 3850 N. Lombard ****** (Court composed of Judge Edwin A. 2011-328, Honorable Mary "KK" Norman, Judge ****** Judge Edwin A. SANCHES FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM SECOND CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS NO. 2013-CA-0003 * VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL * KAREN N.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |