Opinion
No. 2007 CA 1375.
February 8, 2008.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, TRIAL COURT NO. 516,896, HONORABLE CURTIS A. CALLOWAY, JUDGE PRESIDING.
Leonard Cardenas, III Baton Rouge, LA, Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of her minor daughter, Mary Doe.
Daniel R. Atkinson, Jr., Daniel J. Balhoff, Baton Rouge, LA, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees, Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge, John Sanders and John Fabre.
BEFORE: CARTER, C.J., PETTIGREW, AND WELCH, JJ.
Plaintiffs seek review of the trial court's judgment rendered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of defendants, dismissing plaintiffs' suit with prejudice and at their cost. Plaintiffs maintain that the jury's verdict and trial court judgment were manifestly erroneous in finding that plaintiffs received the legally required due process safeguards when they withdrew from enrollment at Redemptorist Diocesan Regional Catholic High School ("RHS"). Plaintiffs also assert that the jury erred in failing to award them compensatory damages.
After a thorough review of the record and an evaluation of the relevant jurisprudence, we find no manifest error in the jury's factual conclusions and credibility determinations. The record supports the jury's conclusion that due process requirements were met when plaintiffs chose to withdraw from RHS rather than pursue the disciplinary hearing process offered by RHS. There is no evidence in the record of any abuse of discretion on the part of defendants. Additionally, the record supports the jury's conclusions that defendants did not defame or intentionally inflict emotional distress on plaintiffs. Thus, the jury correctly declined to award monetary damages to plaintiffs.
See Lawrence ex rel. Lawrence v. St. Augustine High School, 07-0263 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/21/07), 955 So.2d 183, 196-197.
Therefore, we hereby summarily affirm the trial court's judgment rendered in accordance with the jury's verdict. See Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2A(2), (6), (7), and (8). All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against plaintiffs/appellants.