2020CW0553 Nonprecedential Writ granted Processed

Turbine Powered Technology, LLC v. David Crowe, Kenneth Braccio, Daniel Foley, George Jackson, Kent Ellsworth, Arizona Turbine Technology, L.L.C, Arizona Turbine Technology, Inc., Advance Turbine Services, L.L.C. & Turbine Integrated Power Systems, L.L.C.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed August 6, 2020

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

TURBINE POWERED TECHNOLOGY, NO. 2020 CW 0553
LLC

VERSUS

DAVID CROWE, KENNETH
BRACCIO, DONALD FOLEY,
GEORGE JACKSON, KENT
ELLSWORTH, ARIZONA TURBINE
TECHNOLOGY, L. L. C., ARIZONA
TURBINE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
ADVANCED TURBINE SERVICES,
L. L. C., & TURBINE INTEGRATED AUGUST 6, 2020
POWER SYSTEMS, L. L. C.

In Re: Advanced Turbine Services, LLC and Kenneth Braccio,
applying for supervisory writs, 16th Judicial District
Court, Parish of St. Mary, No. 130379.

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s June 24, 2020, ruling
denying Advanced Turbine Services, LLC and Kenneth Braccio' s
Motion for Leave to File First Amended and Supplemental
Reconventional Demand" is reversed. Amendment of pleadings

should be liberally allowed. Nexion Health at Minden, Inc. v.

Louisiana Dept of Health, 2018- 0069 La. App. lst Cir. 3/ 7% 18),
2018 WL 1182897 ( unpublished); Premier Bank, Nat. Ass' n v.

Robinson, 618 So. 2d 1037, 1040 ( La. 1st Cir. 1993).
App. Thus,
the trial court abused its discretion in defendants'
denying
motion for leave to amend.

PMc
AHP
WIL

Holdridge, J., concurs. It is mandatory under La. C. C. P.
art. 1061 for the defendants to assert in a reconventional
demand all causes of action that he may have against the
plaintiffs that arise out of the transaction or occurrence that
is the subject matter of the principal demand.

Welch, J., dissents and would deny the writ. 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST C RCUIT

QAr
ftPJ TY CL RK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT