Kyra Washington, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Thomas Hall, Charissa Michelle Laws as tutrix of the minor child, Thomas Alvin Hall Laws v. Steven M. Cutrer, Tedrick Washington, Kansas City Southern Railway Company and State of Louisiana, through The Department of Transportation and Development

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

KYRA WASHINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND NO. 2019 CW 0484
ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS
HALL, CHARISSA MICHELLE LAWS AS
TUTRIX OF THE MINOR CHILD, THOMAS
ALVIN HALL LAWS

VERSUS

STEVEN M. CUTRER, TEDRICK
WASHINGTON, KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN SEP 0 6 2019
RAILWAY COMPANY AND STATE OF
LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

In Re: The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Steven
Cutrer and Tedrick Washington, applying for

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 613124.

BEFORE: WELCH, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. The criteria set forth in Herlitz
Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.,
396 So. 2d 878 ( La. 1981) ( per curiam), are not met.

M11

Holdridge, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. I
would grant the writ application in part to vacate the portion

of the district court' s March 27, 2019 ruling reversing the
prior partial grant of the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
the Defendants, Steven Cutrer, Tedrick Washington, and Kansas

City Southern Railway Company, pursuant to the Motion for New

Trial filed by the Plaintiffs, Kyra Washington, individually and
on behalf of the estate of Thomas Hall, and Charissa Michelle
Laws, as tutrix of the minor child, Thomas Alvin Hall Laws. A
motion for new trial can only be taken from a final judgment.
See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mohamadian, 2009- 1126 ( La. App.
1st Cir. 2/ 17/ 10), 35 So. 3d 1118, 1121. The grant of a motion

for summary judgment that is dispositive of less than all of the
issues and does not dismiss a party is not a final judgment.
See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915( A)( 3). Therefore, the district
court erred in reversing its prior ruling on the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. However, this does not preclude

the Plaintiffs from filing a motion to reconsider the district
court' s interlocutory ruling.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DE U Y CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT