Frank Cushenberry and Robin Cushenberry, individually and on behalf of the minor children, Noah Cushenberry and Khloe Cushenberry v. Johnny Scott and Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC
Frank Cushenberry and Robin Cushenberry, individually and on behalf of the minor children, Noah Cushenberry and Khloe Cushenberry v. Johnny Scott and Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC, No. 2021CW0003 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Jan. 6, 2021).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc. 616 So. 2d 1234
- Expert Riser Solutions, LLC v. Techcrane Int'l, LLC 270 So. 3d 655
- State v. Astra Zeneca AB 249 So. 3d 38
- Mayehaul Trucking, LLC v. Sasol Chems., LLC 252 So. 3d 899
- England v. La. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. 252 So. 3d 904
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
FRANK CUSHENBERRY AND ROBIN NO. 2021 CW 0003
CUSHENBERRY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR PAGE 1 of 2
CHILDREN, NOAH CUSHENBERRY
AND KHLOE CUSHENBERRY
VERSUS
JOHNNY SCOTT AND BARBER
BROTHERS CONTRACTING
COMPANY, LLC LOUISIANA
CONSOLIDATED WITH
BARBER BROTHERS CONTRACTING
COMPANY, LLC
VERSUS
CAPITOL CITY PRODUCE
COMPANY, LLC, FRANK
CUSHENBERRY AND XYZ
JANUARY 6, 2021
INSURANCE COMPANY
In Re: Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC, applying for
supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 674957 c/ w 672217.
BEFORE: MCDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.
WRIT DENIED.
AHP
McDonald and Holdridge, JJ., concur in the result. At this
stage of the proceedings, the proper procedural remedy would be
for the defendant to request a motion for directed verdict, La.
C. C. P. art. 181.0, after the close of the plaintiffs' case if the
plaintiffs fail to prove any of their causes of action.
However, we disagree that a partial exception of no cause of
action cannot be granted. Prior to 1997, the cases did not
allow a judgment granting only a partial exception of no cause
of action. See Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru
South, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1234, 1239 ( La. 1993). However, in 1997,
the legislature authorized a partial judgment that " sustains an
exception in part, as to one or more but less than all of the
claims, demands, issues, or theories against a party." La.
C. C. P. art. 1915( B)( 1). " This amendment ... authorizes a
judgment granting a partial exception of no cause of action;
importantly, this amendment provides certainty as to the
immediate appealability of such a judgment." Frank L. Maraist,
Louisiana Civil Law Treatise; Civil Procedure, Vol. I, § 6. 7,
pp. 172- 173 ( 2d ed. 2008). We are aware that although La.
C. C. P. art. 1915( 3)( 1) would appear to authorize a judgment
granting only a partial exception of no cause of action, this
court has not interpreted the clear and unambiguous language of
La. C. C. P. art. 1915( B)( 1) in this manner. See Expert Riser
Solutions, LLC v. Techcrane International, LLC, 2018- 0612 ( La.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
App. 1 Cir. 12/ 28/ 18), 270 So. 3d 655, 663; State, by and through
Caldwell v. Astra Zeneca AB, 2016- 1073 ( La. 1
App. Cir.
4/ 11/ 18), 249 So. 3d 38, 50- 51 ( Holdridge, J., concurring), writ
denied, 2018- 00766 ( La. 9/ 21/ 18), 252 So. 3d 899, and writ denied
sub nam. State, by and through Caldwell v. AstraZeneca AB, 2018-
0758 ( La. 9/ 21/ 18), 252 So. 3d 904. However, legislation, and not
jurisprudence, is a solemn expression of legislative will. La.
C. C. art. 2. Therefore, this court has the authority to grant a
partial exception raising the objection of no cause of action.
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT
PAGE 2 of 2