Opinion
2023-OC-01109
09-26-2023
ANTHONY T. STRAUGHTER, DERON ALEXANDER AND RUSSELL BICKHAM v. OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE TRINITY SYSTEM INC., AND AARON MATTHEW WHITE DE'MYRON ALEXANDER v. WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY AND MATTHEW WHITE
Wilshire Insurance Company - Applicant Defendant; The Trinity System, Inc. - Applicant Defendant; Aaron Matthew White - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans Civil, Orleans Civil District Court Number(s) 2019-03996, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2023-CA-0480 C/W 2023-CA-0481;
Writ application denied.
JLW
JDH
JTG
PDG
Weimer, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., would grant.
McCallum, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Crichton, J.
WEIMER, C.J., concurring in writ denial.
While I share the dissent's concern that the justice system should never be used as an instrumentality of fraud, I write separately to point out that the allegations of fraud in this case are, at this point, no more than that: allegations. Furthermore, the allegations are unsupported allegations at best, as defendants have offered no evidence in this record, outside of speculation, that plaintiffs in this case are the subjects of a criminal investigation.
Rather than create a remedy based on unsupported allegations (as defendants request), the codal law of this state provides a remedy for defendants should their allegations have merit. Defendants have availed themselves of that remedy by filing a petition to annul the judgment for fraud and ill practices. See La. C.C.P. art. 2004. The codal law also provides guidance with respect to the issue presented here: whether the appeal should be stayed pending the resolution of the nullity action. Louisiana C.C.P. art. 2005 explains that "[a] judgment may be annulled prior to or pending an appeal therefrom" and that "[a]n action of nullity does not affect the right to appeal." (Emphasis added.) The codal law must be respected. The circumstances of this case, particularly in light of the dearth of evidence presented to support the allegations of fraud, do not warrant a departure from our written laws of procedure. To grant defendants' request under these circumstances would depart from the laws as enacted by the legislature and have the effect of delaying the appeal for an indefinite period of time based merely on speculation that criminal charges might be filed against plaintiffs at some point in the future or that the nullity action will be decided in defendants' favor.
Plaintiffs contend defendants have taken no steps to expedite that proceeding.
See, e.g., United States Department of Justice, "Operation Sideswipe Spotter Sentenced to Prison for Conspiring to Stage Automobile Accidents In Order to Defraud Insurance and Trucking Companies" (Jan. 22, 2021), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/operationsideswipe-spotter-sentenced-prisonconspiring-stage-automobile-accidents; "Two More Defendants Sentenced for Conspiring to Stage Automobile Accidents to Defraud Insurance Companies" (Apr. 20, 2022), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/two-moredefendants-sentenced-conspiring-stage-automobile-accidents-defraud-insurance; "Four Individuals Sentenced for Conspiring to Stage Automobile Accidents" (Feb. 10, 2023), available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/four-individuals-sentenced-conspiring-stage-automobileaccidents.
Because defendants have perfected a suspensive appeal, there is no danger of plaintiffs executing the judgment. Moreover, the court of appeal has expressly reserved to defendants the right to renew their motion to stay in the future, should plaintiffs become the subjects of a criminal prosecution. Under these circumstances, I see no error in the court of appeal's denial of defendants' motion to stay their suspensive appeal and/or suspend briefing and no basis for this court's exercise of its "plenary powers over the courts" when the law as written already provides remedies and procedural guidance.
CRICHTON, J., dissents, would grant the writ, and assigns reasons.
The alleged fraud and conspiracy involving staged automobile accidents, which is the subject of the underlying petition to annul judgments, is highly public in nature and vast in scope, and has led to numerous federal criminal convictions.1 In this particular case, after plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to recover damages from an apparent vehicle accident and following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs for more than $4 million. Defendants filed a petition to annul the final judgment, alleging that the plaintiffs engaged in fraud and ill practices to secure judgments in this matter by acting as part of the staged-accident scheme. Defendants also timely appealed and sought a stay of the appeal to provide time to investigate the evidence of fraud in the petition to annul. The court of appeal declined to grant a stay, though reserved the defendants' right to file a motion to stay in the future "in the event" that the particular plaintiffs in this case "become the subject of a criminal investigation."
In my view, this case presents an appropriate use of our plenary powers over the courts, and I therefore dissent from the denial of the writ. See generally La. Const. article V, Section 5 (A). Most critically, the underlying allegations involve the use of the justice system itself as an instrumentality of the alleged fraud. I would therefore reverse the court of appeal and stay the appeal of this matter pending the trial court's ruling on the petition to annul judgments.