Opinion
NO. 2021 CA 0657
12-22-2021
Larry REED v. LOUISIANA HORTICULTURE COMMISSION and Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
Larry Reed, Shreveport, Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, In Proper Person E. John Litchfield, Michael J. Marsiglia, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees, Louisiana Horticulture Commission and Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
Larry Reed, Shreveport, Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, In Proper Person
E. John Litchfield, Michael J. Marsiglia, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees, Louisiana Horticulture Commission and Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
BEFORE: LANIER, WOLFE, AND BURRIS, JJ.
The Honorable William J. Burris, retired, is serving pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
WOLFE, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying a motion for new trial and a judgment sustaining the defendants’ peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata and dismissing all of plaintiff's claims for damages. For the following reasons, we reverse in part and affirm in part for alternate reasons.
Plaintiff appealed from the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial after the trial court sustained defendants’ peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata. Generally, where it is clear from the appellant's brief that the appellant intended to appeal a judgment on the merits, along with a judgment denying a motion for new trial, an appellate court will consider the appeal to be an appeal of the judgment on the merits even though the notice of appeal only refers to the judgment denying the motion for new trial. See Nelson v. Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana, 2010-1190 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/11/11), 57 So.3d 587, 589 n.2 ; Southern Chiropractic and Sports Rehabilitation Center, Inc. v. Coleman, 2007-1585 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/30/08), 2008 WL 2582496, *2. Accordingly, we will consider this matter as though plaintiff intended to appeal from both the judgment sustaining the exception, as well as the judgment that denied his motion for new trial.
BACKGROUND
In 1997, Larry Reed filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Louisiana Horticulture Commission, which is a commission of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (hereafter referred to collectively as "LDAF"). In the mandamus action, Mr. Reed sought to compel the re-issuance of a horticultural license for landscape contracting following the suspension of his license in 1988 and again in 1992. The parties reached a compromise in 1999 regarding the issuance of the license to Mr. Reed. The terms of the consent agreement are memorialized in a judgment signed by the trial court on April 12, 2018. The 2018 judgment stated that the compromise concluded any and all proceedings, including but not limited to mandamus and damages.
Mr. Reed appealed the 2018 judgment. This court affirmed the portion of that judgment that set forth the terms of the consent agreement, but vacated the portion of that judgment that dismissed Mr. Reed's claim for damages, finding that the damage claim was not included in the parties’ consent agreement. Additionally, this court remanded the matter to the trial court for disposition of Mr. Reed's claim for damages that Mr. Reed, as a pro se litigant, had raised in a "Motion for Damages and Amendment to Partial Summary Judgment for Damages" filed on November 16, 2017. Treating Mr. Reed's pro se motion as a petition for damages, this court determined that Mr. Reed set forth allegations of damages he purportedly sustained as a result of LDAF's intentional and persistent failure to issue a landscape contractor's license to him. See Reed v. Louisiana Horticulture Commission, 2018-1142 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/23/19), 2019 WL 1771525, *3.
On February 24, 2020, Mr. Reed filed another pleading entitled "Petition for Damages" which, considering Mr. Reed's pro se status, we now treat as an amending and supplemental petition. In the amended petition, Mr. Reed alleges that he sustained a loss of income from landscaping jobs at the Shreveport Regional Airport and at his fiance's house in 1998 and 1999, due to the intentional and negligent actions of LDAF in failing to issue a landscape contractor's license to him. Mr. Reed also alleged damages for emotional distress caused by the foreclosure on his fiance's house. LDAF responded by filing peremptory exceptions raising the objections of res judicata and prescription. LDAF asserted that all of Mr. Reed's claims existed at the time of filing his first petition and that all of the issues had been adjudicated or had prescribed.
It is well-settled that "[e]very pleading shall be construed as to do substantial justice." La. Code Civ. P. art. 865 ; Scott v. Hogan, 2017-1716 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/18/18), 255 So.3d 24, 28. Considering Mr. Reed's clear attempt to amend his pleadings shortly after this court's decision in the appeal of the 2018 judgment, we construe Mr. Reed's pleading for what it really is, not for what it is erroneously called. Thomas v. Bridges, 2012-1439 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/28/13), 120 So.3d 338, 341, writ granted 2013-1855 (La. 12/6/13), 129 So.3d 525, and aff'd, 2013-1855 (La. 5/7/14), 144 So.3d 1001.
After a January 11, 2021 hearing, the trial court signed a judgment on February 5, 2021, sustaining LDAF's exception of res judicata and dismissing Mr. Reed's airport and property claims and any related damages that Mr. Reed may have sustained. The trial court's judgment was silent as to LDAF's exception of prescription. Following the denial of a motion for new trial, Mr. Reed appealed the February 5, 2021 judgment. After the record was lodged, this court issued an interim order stating that it was not possible to determine, from the judgment alone, if the judgment dismissed Mr. Reed's claims in their entirety. Accordingly, this court remanded the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of instructing the trial court to sign an amended judgment correcting the cited deficiencies. The trial court signed an amended judgment on October 25, 2021, and the appellate record has been supplemented with the judgment that dismisses "any and all other claims for damages as prayed for by [Mr. Reed] in his February 24, 2020" petition for damages. As such, the trial court has determined the whole of the merits of Mr. Reed's amended petition for damages, dismissing all claims for damages. There is nothing left for the trial court to decide. Thus, we conclude the October 25, 2021 amended judgment is a final, appealable judgment, and we maintain the appeal.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Reed argues that the trial court erred in sustaining LDAF's exception of res judicata and denying his motion for new trial. The peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata is based on the conclusive legal presumption of a thing previously adjudged between the same parties. The burden of proving the facts essential to sustaining the objection is on the party pleading the objection. If any doubt exists as to its application, the exception must be overruled and the second lawsuit maintained. Davis v. J.R. Logging, Inc., 2013-0568 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/8/13), 136 So.3d 828, 830, writ denied, 2014-0860 (La. 6/20/14), 141 So.3d 812. The standard of review regarding a ruling on res judicata, where evidence was previously submitted in the case, involves a question of law that requires an appellate court to determine if the trial court's decision is legally correct or incorrect. Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. IP Petroleum Co., Inc., 2016-0230 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 219 So.3d 349, 365, writ denied, 2017-00915 (La. 10/9/17), 227 So.3d 833. Thus, a de novo review is the appropriate standard of review.
Our review of the record reveals that the trial court improperly sustained LDAF's exception of res judicata , because there has never been a trial on the merits of Mr. Reed's damage claims and there is no second lawsuit. At its core, res judicata envisions a second lawsuit. Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. , 219 So.3d at 365. Here, there is one lawsuit with multiple judgments of the trial and appellate courts within that same suit. The law-of-the-case doctrine, as opposed to res judicata, is the proper procedural principle for describing the relationship between prior judgments by trial and appellate courts rendered within the same case. Id. at 366. The law-of-the-case doctrine embodies the principle that an appellate court generally does not revisit its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case. See Trans Louisiana Gas Co. v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 96-1477 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/9/97), 693 So.2d 893, 896. This court previously upheld the consent agreement between the parties and specifically found that the issue of damages was not included in the consent agreement. The case was remanded to the trial court for disposition of Mr. Reed's claim for damages. Reed, 2019 WL 1771525 at *2-3. At the hearing on LDAF's exceptions of res judicata and prescription, both parties and the trial court observed that damages had not been adjudicated. Because the trial court improperly sustained LDAF's exception of res judicata, we reverse that portion of the judgment. LDAF also raised a peremptory exception of prescription, which the trial court noted was properly before it at the hearing on the exceptions. Although the trial court's judgment is silent as to a ruling on the exception of prescription, the transcript of the hearing shows that the exception was recognized by the trial court and was argued by LDAF. Silence in a judgment as to any part of a demand or any issue litigated is construed as a rejection of that claim or issue by the trial court. Pratt v. Himel Marine, Inc., 2001-1832 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/21/02), 823 So.2d 394, 397 n. 2, writs denied, 2002-2128, 2002-2025 (La. 11/1/02), 828 So.2d 572, 572. Furthermore, even though the exception of prescription was not the basis of the trial court's dismissal of Mr. Reed's damage claims, the exception is properly before this court and may be decided by us pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2163 since the exception was timely pleaded in accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 927. See Thompson v. Cane Gardens Apartments, 442 So.2d 1296, 1298 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1983).
We find merit in LDAF's alternative exception of prescription, which we have determined is properly before us. Mr. Reed's claim for damages is based on the alleged intentional, persistent, and negligent actions of LDAF in failing to re-issue a landscape contractor's license to him and his resulting loss of income starting in 1998-1999. That claim for damages is based in tort. The law is well settled that an action in tort prescribes one year from the day the damage is sustained. See La. Civ. Code art. 3492. Mr. Reed's pleadings reveal that his potential damage from lost income related to his suspended license began in 1998, yet Mr. Reed did not file his claim for damages until November 2017. See Reed , 2019 WL 1771525 at *3. We find that Mr. Reed's claim for damages is clearly prescribed; therefore, we affirm the dismissal of all of his damage claims on the alternate basis of prescription.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, we maintain the appeal of the amended judgment dated October 25, 2021; we reverse the res judicata ruling; and we affirm on the alternate basis of prescription, sustaining the exception of prescription and dismissing all of Larry Reed's claims against the Louisiana Horticulture Commission and the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry. We assess all costs associated with this appeal against plaintiff-appellant, Larry Reed.