Opinion
2016 CA 1414
06-02-2017
ERIC MISTRETTA v. JEFFREY L. BRENT AND THERESA BRENT
Matthew W. Pryor Gonzales, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Eric Mistretta Kenneth J. Dupaty Gonzales, Louisiana Counsel for Defendants/Appellants Jeffrey Brent and Theresa Brent
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from the Twenty-Third Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Ascension State of Louisiana
No. 2015-223 Honorable Marilyn M. Lambert, Judge Presiding Matthew W. Pryor
Gonzales, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Eric Mistretta Kenneth J. Dupaty
Gonzales, Louisiana Counsel for Defendants/Appellants
Jeffrey Brent and Theresa Brent BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND McCLENDON, JJ. McCLENDON, J.
The defendants appeal a judgment granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 7, 2015, the plaintiff, Eric Mistretta, filed a Petition for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Permanent Injunction against the defendants, Jeffrey L. Brent and Theresa Brent. In his petition, Mr. Mistretta asserted that he is an owner and member of Chemtech Chemical Services, LLC (Chemtech) and that, at one time, Mr. Brent was an employee of Chemtech. Mr. Mistretta alleged that upon the dissolution of Mr. Brent's employment with Chemtech, Mr. Brent was under the mistaken belief that Mr. Mistretta owed him $5,000.00. As a result, Mr. Brent made demand on Mr. Mistretta for the money, which demand was rejected. Mr. Mistretta further contended that since November 2011, Mr. Brent had repeatedly sent text messages regarding the $5,000.00 that contained "veiled threats of bodily harm" to Mr. Mistretta "for the purpose of extorting money" from him. Mr. Mistretta stated that on April 21, 2015, he was at a business function in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and that Mr. and Mrs. Brent were in the same location. Mr. Mistretta contended that the Brents confronted him, yelling obscenities and threatening him, and that Mr. Brent physically bumped into him with his chest. Mr. Mistretta stated that while most of the threats were made by Mr. Brent, Mrs. Brent was involved as well. Mr. Mistretta believed that the actions of the Brents constituted an immediate threat to his life, health and well-being.
Mr. Brent contends that Mr. Mistretta agreed to help him with attorney fees in defending a lawsuit by Mr. Brent's former employer. Mr. Mistretta maintains that there was never an agreement between them. --------
Following a hearing on October 20, 2015, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction. The trial on the merits for the permanent injunction was held on May 17, 2016, and the trial court granted Mr. Mistretta's request. On June 30, 2016, the trial court signed its judgment, ordering a permanent injunction against both Mr. and Mrs. Brent. The permanent injunctions were also signed that date, prohibiting the Brents from contacting Mr. Mistretta or coming within 100 feet of Mr. Mistretta or his family. The only exception would be when Mr. Mistretta and the Brents were at a mutual industry event, at the consent and behest of the host of said event, and in such a case, the Brents were enjoined from coming within 20 feet of Mr. Mistretta or his family. The Brents appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in granting permanent injunctive relief.
DISCUSSION
An injunction shall be issued in cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise result to the applicant, or in other cases specifically provided by law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 3601A. Irreparable injury is a loss that cannot be adequately compensated in money damages or is not susceptible of measurement by pecuniary standards. In re Interdiction of Wright, 13-0862 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/27/14), 144 So.3d 7, 12, writ denied, 14-0832 (La. 6/20/14) 141 So.3d 810. A petitioner is also entitled to injunctive relief when the conduct sought to be restrained is unconstitutional or unlawful. Jurisich v. Jenkins, 99-0076 (La. 10/19/99), 749 So.2d 597, 599.
The issuance of a permanent injunction takes place only after a trial on the merits, in which the burden of proof must be founded on a preponderance of the evidence. State Machinery & Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Iberville Parish Council, 05-2240 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/06), 952 So.2d 77, 81. Appellate courts review the issuance of a permanent injunction under the manifest error standard of review. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Carr and Associates, Inc., 08-2114 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/8/09), 15 So.3d 158, 170, writ denied, 09-1627 (La. 10/30/09), 21 So.3d 292. Under this standard, in order to reverse a trial court's determination of fact, an appellate court must review the entire record and find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding and further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993). Thus, if the trial court's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, this court may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Id.
In their appeal, the Brents argue that the potential harm that Mr. Mistretta asserts does not rise to the level of irreparable harm. They contend that Mr. Mistretta merely described Mr. Brent attempting to collect on a substantial debt and that the Brents presented no threat to Mr. Mistretta. The Brents further described the text messages being, for the most part, "very cordial and at times entertaining." To the contrary, Mr. Mistretta claims that the notion that he owed the defendants $5,000.00 was absurd. He maintains that he ignored Mr. Brent and avoided him, fearing confrontation, and when Mr. Mistretta did come into contact with Mr. Brent in Tulsa, a clear threat was made. Mr. Mistretta stated that upon his return from Oklahoma, he sought injunctive relief. He additionally asserts that the defendants offered no evidence to counter the undisputed testimony of his witnesses at the trial, and there was no error by the trial court.
At trial, Mr. Mistretta testified that he was the previous minority owner of Chemtech and that Chemtech hired Mr. Brent. Mr. Mistretta testified that he became aware, through conversations with his business partner, that Mr. Brent was a defendant in another lawsuit with a business competitor and that the business partner had given Mr. Brent the names of several attorneys to consider. According to Mr. Mistretta, he never discussed the litigation with Mr. Brent.
Mr. Mistretta also stated that in December 2010, Chemtech was sold to Champion Technologies and that Mr. Brent was terminated in November 2011 by Champion. Mr. Mistretta testified that when Mr. Brent was terminated, he called Mr. Mistretta on the phone telling him that he had been terminated and asking Mr. Mistretta for money that supposedly was promised to him. Mr. Brent told Mr. Mistretta that Chemtech sold for a lot of money and he felt that Mr. Mistretta owed him some of it. Mr. Mistretta stated that he told Mr. Brent that he was not going to give him any money and told him not to call him anymore.
Mr. Mistretta further testified that over the next several years, he received harassing text messages from Mr. Brent's phone demanding $5,000.00. Copies of the text messages were introduced into evidence at the trial of the matter. Mr. Mistretta stated that he never responded to any of the texts and that he avoided the places where he knew Mr. Brent would be. The last text message Mr. Mistretta received was in April 2015, just prior to leaving for Oklahoma, when he received a text from Mr. Brent that stated, "bring my 5k to OK."
On April 21, 2015, Mr. Mistretta was at his company's hospitality suite in the hotel where the industry event was hosted. He stated that he learned that both defendants were outside of the suite waiting for him and that he stayed in the suite, hoping to avoid confrontation. When the suite closed, Mr. Mistretta left with a large group of people. As he approached the elevators, Mr. Mistretta testified that Mr. Brent approached him and asked him to get a beer with him. When Mr. Mistretta told Mr. Brent to walk away, Mr. Mistretta stated that was when "he just went off." Mr. Brent became angry, started yelling, and demanded $5,000.00. He also physically bumped into Mr. Mistretta. Mr. Mistretta stated that Mrs. Brent was also cursing at him and demanding $5,000.00.
As the Brents were ushered into their elevator by others in an attempt to separate the Brents from Mr. Mistretta, Mr. Mistretta testified that he heard Mr. Brent say that he would get his money "one way or the other" and that Mr. Mistretta better watch his back. Mr. Mistretta stated that he absolutely took the comments as a threat. These events were not contradicted by anyone and were corroborated by the testimony of William Cook and Gretchen Blank.
The Brents rested without putting on any evidence. Thereafter, the trial court granted the permanent injunction. The court also recognized that Mr. Mistretta and Mr. Brent were employed in the same industry and made accommodations in the judgment for when they might be at the same industry event
Upon our thorough review of the record, we find that a reasonable basis exists for the trial court's determination. Mr. Mistretta testified that he felt threatened, particularly at the Tulsa, Oklahoma event. Two other witnesses testified that the actions of the Brents in Tulsa were threatening and that Mr. Mistretta was trying to avoid confrontation. Additionally, the Brents offered no evidence to contradict the allegations of Mr. Mistretta. Based on the evidence herein, we find that Mr. Mistretta's fear of bodily harm and continued threats was justified, constituting irreparable injury. See Lassalle v. Daniels, 96-0176 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/96), 673 So.2d 704, 710, writ denied, 96-1463 (La. 9/20/96), 679 So.2d 435, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1117, 117 S.Ct. 963, 136 L.Ed.2d 848 (1997). Accordingly, we find no manifest error in the trial court's conclusion that Mr. Mistretta was entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the Brents.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the June 30, 2016 judgment of the trial court, granting the plaintiff, Eric Mistretta, permanent injunctive relief against the defendants. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the defendants, Jeffrey L. Brent and Theresa Brent.
AFFIRMED.