Opinion
No. 2018-CC-1617
12-10-2019
Gustave J. LABARRE, Jr., Ramona H. Talbot, Howard J. Dupre, III, Gail D. Boudreaux, Floyd A. Labarre, Marlene L. Folse, Cheryl D. Daigle, Henry R. Lawes, Jr., Sidney J. Hernandez, June D. Bouchereau, Louis P. Leblanc, Jr., Pierre F. V. Delabarre, IV, Mary G. Delabarre, Katherine D. Labarre, Andre P.V. Delabarre, Gilbert J. Dupre, Jr., Grant J. Dupre, Grantlyn D. Wheeler, Elena R. Leblanc, Helen H. Shaw, Anita H. Williams, Gertrude L. Landry, Lydia L. Shavers, Merrill L. Cornay, Harry J. Simoneaux, Sr., Harry J. Simoneaux, Jr., Amy Simoneaux, Lyle T. Simoneaux, Joie A. Simoneaux, Simone S. Lawson, Christopher A. Simoneaux, Gregory J. Dupre, Augusta L. Riffert, Albert H. Leblanc, Jr., Maria Carmen Delabarre, Lizarraga Enterprises, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC and Georgia Gulf Chemical & Vinyls, LLC
PER CURIAM The writ is granted for the sole purpose of remanding the case to the district court for reconsideration of its ruling in light of Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co. , 2019-0052 (La. 10/22/19). Nothing in this order shall preclude the district court from reaching any other relevant issues in the case, including, but not limited to, a determination of the appropriate choice of law. The motion for leave to exceed page limits is denied. The motion to strike the sur-reply brief is granted.
Weimer, J., dissent and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., recused.
WEIMER, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I find relator's application for reconsideration of this court's earlier writ denied is procedurally improper under Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6. Accordingly, the application should not be considered.
I note that the district court specifically denied relator's motion to designate the judgment at issue as final under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)(1). As a result, relator is free to ask the district court to reconsider its ruling in light of subsequent developments, including our clarification of the law in this area in Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co. , 2019-0052 (La. 10/22/19). See La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)(2) (explaining that in the absence of a designation of finality, "any such order or decision shall not constitute a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal and may be revised at any time prior to rendition of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties."). Nothing in this order should preclude the district court from reaching any other relevant issues in the case, including, but not limited to, a determination of the appropriate choice of law.
--------