“This is a question of fact that is determined by whether a reasonable person of usual sensibilities would find the stress ‘extraordinary.’ ” Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, Inc., 47,025, p. 12 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/9/12), 92 So.3d 560, 568,quotingGooden v. B E & K Const., 33,457, pp. 4–5 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/23/00), 764 So.2d 1206, 1209. “The second prong ... requires” the plaintiff “to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her physical work stress or exertion, and not some other source of stress or preexisting condition, was the predominant and major cause of her” heart-related or perivascular injury. Harold, 94–0889, p. 7, 643 So.2d at 756.
Rain and Hail , L.L.C. v. Davis , 49,813 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/15), 165 So. 3d 1204 ; Simpson v. Davidson , 35,048 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/31/01), 799 So. 2d 652 ; State ex rel. Div. of Admin. , Office of Risk Management v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Louisiana , 2010-0689 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/11/11), 56 So. 3d 1236, writ denied , 2011-0849 (La. 6/3/11), 63 So. 3d 1023. As noted by this Court in Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, Inc. , 47,025 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/9/12), 92 So. 3d 560, writ denied , 2012-1318 (La. 9/28/12), 98 So. 3d 844, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is merely an interlocutory ruling that does not bar reconsideration of the same issues raised in the unsuccessful motion. We note that the standard form policies submitted as exhibits attached to both motions appear to be identical and are both numbered Form 11000 03/06, which is the form described on the Declarations Page for the policy issued to the named insured, Annie Bates.
Even if the issue were properly raised, when lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not apparent on the face of the petition, the defendant has the burden of offering evidence that jurisdiction does not exist. Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home Inc. , 47,025 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/9/12), 92 So. 3d 560, writ denied , 2012-1318 (La. 9/28/12), 98 So. 3d 844. Ms. Prevo has made absolutely no showing that this particular class of action, to recover the deficiency on a retail installment contract, or the object of the demand, to obtain a money judgment, is not appropriate for determination in the district court.
enied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment at the initial hearing date, rather than giving the parties additional time to supplement their evidentiary filings, plaintiff could have filed a subsequent motion for summary judgment addressing the same issue(s), this time with the proper documentary evidence. Because a party may re-urge a previously denied motion for summary judgment, the initial denial of summary judgment on an issue does not bar a second motion for summary judgment on the same issue. Simpson v. Davidson, 35,048 (La.App.2d Cir.10/31/01), 799 So.2d 652 ; Gailey v. Barnett, 12–0830 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/05/12), 106 So.3d 625, writ denied,12–2761 (La.02/22/13), 108 So.3d 770 ; State ex rel. Div. of Admin., Office of Risk Management v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Louisiana, 10–0689 (La.App. 1st Cir.02/11/11), 56 So.3d 1236, writ denied, 11–0849 (La.06/03/11), 63 So.3d 1023. As noted by this court in Lloyd v. Shady Lake Nursing Home, Inc., 47,025 (La.App.2d Cir.05/09/12), 92 So.3d 560, writ denied,12–1318 (La.09/28/12), 98 So.3d 844, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is merely an interlocutory ruling that does not bar reconsideration of the same issues raised in the unsuccessful motion. In this case, the trial court's decision to continue the matter to a later date rather than denying summary judgment initially, then requiring plaintiff to refile for summary judgment, something that would be costly and time consuming, was well within its discretion.