De Rome A. Seals v. Joseph corona/dba Nola Automotive Repairs

DE ROME A. SEALS * NO. 2022-CA-0694

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
JOSEPH CORONA/DBA NOLA *
AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2020-07511, DIVISION “B-5”
Honorable Richard G. Perque, Judge Pro Tempore
******
Judge Dale N. Atkins
******
(Court composed of Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase,
Judge Dale N. Atkins)

JENKINS, J. CONCURS IN THE RESULT

De Rome A. Seals
1828 Charbonnet Street
New Orleans, LA 70117

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED
MARCH 29, 2023

DNA
TGC
Pro se plaintiff, De Rome A. Seals (“Mr. Seals”), seeks review of the

September 16, 2022 trial court judgment dismissing his negligence claim against

defendant, Joseph Corona d/b/a NOLA Automotive Repairs (“NOLA Automotive

Repairs”) following a bench trial in this matter. For the reasons that follow, we

affirm.

RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MR. SEALS’ SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 PETITION FOR DAMAGES

On September 8, 2020, Mr. Seals filed a Petition for Damages (“Petition”)

naming NOLA Automotive Repairs as defendant. Therein, Mr. Seals alleged that

in late April 2020, he took his 2005 Lincoln Navigator (“vehicle”) to NOLA

Automotive Repairs for replacement of eight spark plugs, including at least one

broken spark plug.1 Further, Mr. Seals contended that he brought his own spark

plugs to be installed in the vehicle, and that he had a conversation at NOLA

Automotive Repairs about the propensity for spark plugs to break in that particular

1 The record is inconsistent regarding how many spark plugs Mr. Seals
sought to replace. His Better Business Bureau complaint, which is discussed more
fully throughout this Opinion, stated that he sought repair of five spark plugs,
“including a broken one.” The Petition referenced eight spark plugs, including one
that “was broken inside the housing.”

1

vehicle. Mr. Seals also stated in his Petition that he asked to be notified if NOLA

Automotive Repairs discovered more than one broken spark plug in his vehicle.

Additionally, Mr. Seals asserted that when he picked up his vehicle on May 1,

2020, there was an additional $109.00 charge for another broken spark plug

replacement that he did not authorize, as well as a charge for “shop supplies.”

According to Mr. Seals’ Petition, he had a conversation with NOLA Automotive

Repairs the next day, May 2, 2020, to dispute the charges, and subsequently filed a

complaint with the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) on June 8, 2020, which

NOLA Automotive Repairs responded to, by letter, on June 16, 2020.

Mr. Seals’ Petition further alleged that on August 8, 2020, he hired a

mechanic, Mike Cutrer (“Mr. Cutrer”) to “diagnose” the vehicle at a second

automobile repair shop, NOLA Auto Sports. Mr. Seals alleged that during Mr.

Cutrer’s examination, the on-board diagnostic scanner indicated that an

unidentified spark plug “was misfiring” and that Mr. Cutrer “removed said spark

plug[,]” which “was rusty and deeply covered with soot . . . .” Mr. Seals’ Petition

did not reference which spark plug was broken in the vehicle when he brought it

for repairs at NOLA Automotive Repairs or which spark plug Mr. Cutrer removed

during his inspection of the vehicle at NOLA Auto Sports. That is, the Petition

does not explain if the spark plug that Mr. Seals sought replacement of at NOLA

Automotive Repairs in late April 2020 is the same spark plug that Mr. Cutrer

removed from the vehicle on August 8, 2020, at NOLA Auto Sports.

In his Petition, Mr. Seals claimed that he suffered a loss of $687.00;2 undue

stress; loss of sleep; and $3,200.00 in lost wages. He sought damages in the

2 The BBB complaint showed a purchase of $616.70 at NOLA Automotive

Repairs. Mr. Seals’ Petition listed an uncategorized “[l]oss of $617.00, +$70.” The
record is unclear as to what the additional $70 loss in the Petition refers.

2

amount of $3,817.00 “plus court cost[s],” as well as “any and all equitable/punitive

relief deemed by the court.”

Mr. Seals attached NOLA Automotive Repairs’ June 8, 2020 response to his

BBB complaint to his Petition. In this response, Yvette Koehn, who identified

herself as an administrator for NOLA Automotive Repairs, stated that NOLA

Automotive Repairs quoted the full repair price beforehand, and “kept [Mr. Seals]

informed through the whole process of replacing [his] spark plugs . . . .” The letter

from NOLA Automotive Repairs also stated that “shop supplies are for items that

[NOLA Automotive Repairs] use[s] while working on a vehicle,” and that the fee

“is legal according to [La.] R.S. 32:1263.[3]”

Additionally, Mr. Seals attached to his Petition a June 16, 2020 letter from

the law firm of Provosty, Sadler, & deLaunay, APC (“law firm”). The law firm

addressed the letter to NOLA Automotive Repairs and explained that Mr. Seals

“ha[d] contacted [the] law firm in connection with the unauthorized replacement of

one spark plug on his [vehicle] . . . .” Further, the letter provided that “[a]lthough

3 Louisiana Revised Statutes 32:1263 is titled “[m]otor vehicle repairs,” and

it provides:

A. Suppliers of mechanical repairs and services for any vehicle
subject to regulation pursuant to this Chapter shall provide each
consumer with an itemized bill indicating repairs and services
performed, parts replaced, materials used, the total labor charge, and
the identity of the mechanic, repairman, or supplier who performed
the work. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a supplier of
mechanical repairs and services from charging a service fee for the
use of shop supplies such as rags, fender covers, small amounts of
fluid, or other items which are not itemized, provided that the fee does
not exceed ten percent of the total invoice for mechanical repairs or
fifty dollars, whichever is less.

B. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to suppliers of
mechanical repairs and services for any recreational vehicle subject to
regulation of this Chapter.

3

Mr. Seals indicates that he authorized the replacement of one spark plug, he

disputes the $109.95 charge for the replacement of the additional [spark] plug, plus

the $26.39 charge for ‘shop supplies.’” The letter stated that “Mr. Seals maintains

that these were not authorized charges and amicably requests that they be refunded

within ten (10) days of the posting of this letter.”4

NOLA AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS’ OCTOBER 5, 2020 ANSWER

NOLA Automotive Repairs filed an Answer on October 5, 2020, wherein it

denied all the allegations in Mr. Seals’ Petition and contended that the trial court

should dismiss his Petition. Thereafter, the trial court held a bench trial on August

31, 2022.

AUGUST 31, 2022 TRIAL

Present at the August 31, 2022 trial were Mr. Seals and Jessie Wright (“Mr.

Wright”) for Mr. Seals; Patrick Giraud (“defense counsel”), counsel for NOLA

Automotive Repairs; and Joseph Corona (“Mr. Corona”), the owner of NOLA

Automotive Repairs.

4 We note that Mr. Seals’ Petition alleged that NOLA Automotive charged

him $109.00; but the June 16, 2020 letter from the law firm claimed that NOLA
Automotive Repairs charged him $109.95.

4

Testimony of Jessie Wright

Mr. Seals called as a witness Mr. Wright, who identified himself as a truck

driver. Mr. Wright answered in the negative when asked whether he had any

vocational training in mechanical work or any expertise in mechanics that he could

provide to the trial court; but he explained that he previously worked at a tire shop

where he changed tires. After Mr. Seals stated that he was not offering Mr. Wright

as an expert witness,5 Mr. Seals explained that “[Mr. Wright’s] testimony [was]

based on his personal knowledge . . . .” Thereafter, Mr. Wright attested that “[his]

personal knowledge” was that NOLA Automotive Repairs “put the old parts in”

the vehicle and “[did not] change the [spark] plugs.” In this regard, Mr. Wright

testified that he accompanied Mr. Seals to NOLA Auto Sports where Mr. Cutrer

examined the vehicle after Mr. Seals picked it up from NOLA Automotive Repairs

and that when Mr. Cutrer removed the spark plug from the vehicle, it “was in bad

shape still” and was “still black” on “the bottom.” When asked whether this was

the spark plug located “on the number eight cylinder[,]” Mr. Wright responded,

“Yes, I think so, yes.”

Mr. Wright testified that spark plugs are “clean” before they are placed into

the engine. Defense counsel questioned Mr. Wright about what might cause a

spark plug to “foul out” and thus become black, and the following colloquy

occurred:

Q. If the [vehicle is] not running properly, [it is] not firing
correctly, [it is] going to foul out that plug and make it black. Correct?

A. Yes.

5 After sustaining an objection by defense counsel, the trial court judge
instructed Mr. Seals to ask Mr. Wright “about his personal knowledge” because
Mr. Seals had not offered Mr. Wright as an expert witness. Further, the trial court
judge explained that “[o]nly experts can provide opinions.”

5

....

Q. If . . . an engine is running incorrectly and plugs are put in it,
will the engine that is not running correctly cause the plugs to foul
out?

A. [It is] going to blow the plugs. The plugs [are going to] break.

Q. The plug is going to break if the [engine is] not firing correctly?

A. No, not the engine. [I am] talking about the plugs [are] going
[to] break . . . .

Mr. Wright further testified that the vehicle was in driving condition when Mr.

Seals took it from NOLA Automotive Repairs.

Testimony of Mr. Seals

In addition to Mr. Wright’s testimony, Mr. Seals offered his own testimony

during his case in chief; and the trial court allowed Mr. Seals to present his

testimony in a narrative. Mr. Seals testified that when he brought his vehicle to

NOLA Automotive Repairs, he knew that “the spark plugs [in his type of vehicle]

are fragile and sensitive and they have a tendency to break.” Thus, as Mr. Seals

explained, when he brought his vehicle to NOLA Automotive Repairs, he asked to

be informed if there was an additional broken spark plug before NOLA

Automotive Repairs installed a new one but that this “[was] not what happened.”

Instead, as Mr. Seals testified, when he arrived at NOLA Automotive Repairs to

retrieve his vehicle, he noticed on his invoice that he had been charged for an

additional spark plug repair “without . . . the opportunity to see it and agree to the

charges.” Mr. Seals alleged that the spark plugs NOLA Automotive Repairs

installed were “faulty” and that he had to pay to have them removed and replaced.6

6 We note that Mr. Seals did not offer any testimony about the replacement

cost(s).

6

Regarding the condition of his vehicle, Mr. Seals testified that at the time he

brought it to NOLA Auto Sports, it had somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000

miles on it. Further, we note that Mr. Seals did not present testimony about any

ongoing issues with his vehicle or testimony by a mechanic.

Testimony of Mr. Corona

NOLA Automotive Repairs called, as its only witness, Mr. Corona, who

identified himself as the owner of NOLA Automotive Repairs. Mr. Corona

testified that it was “not uncommon” for NOLA Automotive Repairs to perform

the specific type of spark plug repairs that Mr. Seals requested because “that [type

of] vehicle does have a tendency [for] the plugs to seize . . . .”

Regarding the repair to Mr. Seals’ vehicle, Mr. Corona stated that Mr. Seals’

vehicle was towed to NOLA Automotive Repairs. Additionally, Mr. Corona stated

that Mr. Seals “supplied some of the parts” for the repair: he explained that Mr.

Seals provided “absolutely new” spark plugs and that NOLA Automotive Repairs

would not have put a used spark plug into Mr. Seals’ vehicle. Mr. Corona testified

that he thought NOLA Automotive Repairs also had to buy some parts but could

not recall further details; however, he explained that if these parts were less than

$10, then NOLA Automotive Repairs would not have contacted Mr. Seals in

advance for his approval. Mr. Corona further testified that NOLA Automotive

Repairs did not replace all of the spark plugs but only “a [spark] plug [Mr. Seals

could not] get to and a [spark] plug that was broken[,]” the latter of which was in

the number eight hole.7

7 Mr. Corona clarified that he did not perform the repairs himself but that a

“qualified technician” performed the work. Further, Mr. Corona testified that he
monitors the work of his employees by “standing[ing] over [his] employees” and
“walk[ing his] shop all the time.”

7

Mr. Corona testified that when NOLA Automotive Repairs removed the

broken spark plug during the repair, there was “a lot of wet oil behind it[,]” which

Mr. Corona explained is “usually [a] sign[] of maybe a cracked piston when . . . the

motor has a lot of miles on it.” He further stated that while this is a “not

uncommon” occurrence, “[there is] no way . . . to know how much oil and how fast

[it is] going to take [to] foul out the new [spark] plug.” Mr. Corona explained that

if a spark plug has “fouled out,” then this means it is “full of oil” and black. He

testified that “[e]ven a brand new plug is going to be full of oil as soon as the oil

makes its way to the backside of the [spark] plug through the cylinder.”

As Mr. Corona testified, after the repair, he checked the vehicle before

releasing it and test drove it, at which time it was in working order. Mr. Corona

also testified that Mr. Seals was able to drive the vehicle away from NOLA

Automotive Repairs. He explained that “the fact that the [new] spark plug was

firing gave that engine life that it appeared to have until the oil fouled out the new

[spark] plug” again. Mr. Corona testified that he did not know how long it took for

the oil to foul out the new spark plug but that when it did, this is when Mr. Seals

returned to NOLA Automotive Sports “and had problems and issues.”8

In his closing argument after Mr. Corona’s testimony, Mr. Seals agreed with

Mr. Corona’s testimony about underlying engine issues potentially causing a spark

plug to “foul out.” Specifically, Mr. Seals stated that he “agree[d] with [Mr.

Corona] when he says that service – after the vehicle . . . recalibrates, has a

tendency to foul the spark plugs out . . . .” Mr. Seals additionally conceded that “it

8 Mr. Corona stated that it might have taken “a week, a month, or six months

to foul out the new [spark] plug.”

8

has been revealed . . . that [this] could possibly be why the spark plugs were black

and not because [NOLA Automotive Repairs] failed to replace them.”

AUGUST 31, 2022 ORAL RULING AND SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 SIGNED
JUDGMENT

At the close of the trial, the trial court dismissed Mr. Seals’ case with

prejudice and provided the following oral reasons:

Given the testimony that was heard today and in review of the
record, [Mr. Seals’] witness testified that the vehicle was towed in and
then it was able to be driven out. Additionally, the testimony of [Mr.
Seals’] own witness provided that he did, in fact, see black spark
plugs prior to bringing the vehicle to NOLA Automotive [Repairs].

I have heard no testimony today that NOLA Automotive
Repairs has provided inappropriate or negligent work on this vehicle
nor have I been provided any documentation, testimony, or evidence
regarding any damages. By [Mr. Seals’] own admission during his
closing argument, he has stated that, in fact, if there were black spark
plugs at the time that he saw them after the repairs, that it could, in
fact, be produced due to the [explanation in the] testimony of [Mr.
Corona] in this action.

With that being said, [I am] going to rule in favor of [NOLA
Automotive Repairs]. [I am] going to dismiss this case with prejudice,
specifically, that [Mr. Seals] has failed to reach his burden in order to
prove that damages were, in fact, incurred as a result of the action or
inaction of [NOLA Automotive Repairs].

Thereafter, on September 16, 2022, the trial court rendered a written

judgment against Mr. Seals and in favor of NOLA Automotive Repairs, stating, in

pertinent part:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
Judgment is rendered in favor of Defendant, Joseph Corona d/b/a
NOLA Automotive Repairs and the Petition for Damages is dismissed
with prejudice.

Mr. Seals timely filed this devolutive appeal.

9

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In civil cases, an appellate court employs the manifest error or clearly wrong

standard of review, “which precludes the setting aside of a trial court’s finding of

fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its

entirety.” Spencer v. Valero Refining Mereaux, L.L.C., 2022-00469, 00539, 00730,

p. 8 (La. 1/1/23), ___ So.3d. ___, ___, 2023 WL 533268, at *4 (citing Hall v.

Folger Coffee Co., 2003-1734, p. 9 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 90, 98; Rosell v.

ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989)). “In order to reverse a fact finder’s

determination of fact, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety and:

(1) find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding; and, (2)

further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong or

manifestly erroneous.” Id. (citing Stobart v. State, Through Dep’t of Transp. &

Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993)). If “there is conflict in the testimony,

reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not

be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own

evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.” Laboriel-Pitio v. Latiker, 2020-

0669, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/16/21), 323 So.3d 929, 935 (alteration in original)

(quoting Brown v. Unknown Driver, 2005-0421, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/18/06), 925

So.2d 583, 586).

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Preliminary, we note:

Pursuant to Rule 2-12.4 of the Uniform Rules [of the] Courts of
Appeal, an appellant’s brief must include, among other things, “a
concise statement of the case, the ruling or action of the trial court
thereon, a specification or assignment of alleged errors relied upon,
the issues presented for review, an argument confined strictly to the
issues of the case free from unnecessary repetition, giving accurate

10

citations of the pages of the record and the authorities cited and a
short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.”

De Rome A. Seals v. Thurmond, 2010-0439, pp. 2-3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/14/10), 43

So.3d 322, 324. “Rule 2-12.4 [of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal]

further provides that ‘[a]ll assignments of error and issues for review must be

briefed,’ and if they are not briefed, ‘[t]he court may consider as abandoned any

specification or assignment of error which has not been briefed.’” Id. at p. 3, 43

So.3d at 324 (alteration in original). Additionally, “for each assignment of error

and issue for review, a concise statement of the applicable standard of review”

must be provided in the argument. Rule 2-12.4(A)(9)(b), Uniform Rules, Courts of

Appeal. The court “may disregard” an argument on an assignment of error if there

is no “suitable reference” to the specific page numbers of the record. Henry v.

Henry, 2017-0282, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/18/17), 316 So.3d 876, 879 (quoting

State v. Rouser, 2014-0613, p. 18 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/7/15), 158 So.3d 860, 873

n.13; Rule 2-12.4(A)(4) and (7), Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal).

In the matter sub judice, Mr. Seals’ pro se brief does not meet the

requirements of Rule 2-12.4 of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal.

Specifically, Mr. Seals assigns five issues for review (1) without citing or applying

any laws, statutes, or precedents; (2) without reference to specific page numbers of

the record; and (3) without providing any concise statements of the applicable

standard of review. Further, Mr. Seals’ brief contains an argument, but it has no

citations to the record or to any laws. However, because Mr. Seals is representing

himself, we nonetheless examine the record in light of the applicable law.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Seals asserts that NOLA Automotive Repairs caused damage to his

11

vehicle when it installed spark plugs which were faulty and replaced a spark plug

without his prior consent as he requested. “The plaintiff seeking damages in a civil

action must prove each element of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Laboriel-Pitio, 2020-0669, p. 9, 323 So.3d at 935 (quoting Bradley v. Safeway Ins.

Co. of La., 2008-1188, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/6/09), 17 So.3d 1, 2). “Established

Louisiana jurisprudence employs a duty-risk analysis to resolve negligence claims

under La. C.C. art. 2315.” Id. (quoting Chanthasalo v. Deshotel, 2017-0521, p. 6

(La. App. 4 Cir. 12/27/17), 234 So.3d 1103, 1107). This duty/risk analysis entails

determining if the plaintiff has proved five elements:

(1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific
standard (the duty element); (2) the defendant failed to conform his
conduct to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty element); (3)
the defendant’s substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the
plaintiff’s injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (4) the defendant’s
substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (the
scope of liability or scope of protection element); and (5) actual
damages (the damages element).
Duronslet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2022-0019, p. 17 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/27/22),

345 So.3d 1136, 1148-49 (citing Cosey on Behalf of Hilliard, 2019-0756, 2019-

0785, p. 17 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/12/20), ___ So.3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 6687515, at

*8). See also Jones v. Boot Bar & Grill, 2022-0154, p. 23 (La. App. 4 Cir.

10/5/22), 350 So.3d 968, 984; James v. Ernest N. Morial New Orleans Exhibition

Hall Auth., 2018-0198, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/26/18), 262 So.3d 958, 963 (citing

Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 2005-1095, p. 7 (La. 3/10/06), 923 So.2d

627, 633). “If the plaintiff fails to prove any one element by a preponderance of the

evidence, the defendant is not liable.” Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 2000-1372, p. 7

(La. 3/23/01), 782 So.2d 606, 611 (citing Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 1994-

0952, p. 11 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 318, 326).

12

Turning to the record, we find that that Mr. Seals presented no evidence that

the repair service provided by NOLA Automotive Repairs failed to conform to the

appropriate standard, or of actual damages to his vehicle. Specifically, Mr. Seals

did not present any evidence as to the appropriate standard for a mechanic

replacing spark plugs and no evidence that NOLA Automotive Repairs used faulty

spark plugs when performing the repair work. Further, Mr. Seals provided no

evidence that NOLA Automotive Repairs caused damages to his vehicle.

As previously summarized, at trial, Mr. Seals presented testimony from

himself and Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright testified only as to the number eight spark

plug. Specifically, he testified that the number eight spark plug was black at the

bottom when he saw it at NOLA Auto Sports and contended that this was because

it was never replaced by NOLA Automotive Repairs. However, Mr. Seals

presented no evidence that Mr. Wright was actually present when NOLA

Automotive Repairs serviced his vehicle so as to have witnessed whether NOLA

Automotive Repairs replaced the spark plug.

Moreover, Mr. Corona testified that the number eight spark plug was black

when he removed and replaced it at NOLA Automotive Repairs.

Regarding the black color on the number eight spark plug, Mr. Corona explained

that because he saw wet oil behind the removed number eight spark plug, the

vehicle’s engine could have a cracked piston, thereby causing the spark plug to

“foul out.” Mr. Corona further stated that a cracked piston is “not uncommon” for

engines with high mileage, such as Mr. Seals’ vehicle, which Mr. Seals stated had

between 150,000 and 200,000 miles when it arrived at NOLA Auto Sports.

Further, Mr. Corona testified that underlying engine issues would again cause the

new spark plug to “foul out” although he could not say with certainty how long it

13

would take for a new spark plug to “foul out.” Mr. Corona opined that Mr. Seals

might have driven the vehicle for “a week, a month, or six months” until the spark

plug again “fouled out.” Both Mr. Wright and Mr. Corona testified that Mr. Seals

was able to drive his vehicle out of NOLA Automotive Repairs. In his Petition, Mr.

Seals alleged that he brought his vehicle into NOLA Auto Sports on August 8,

2020, which was approximately two months after NOLA Automotive Repairs

replaced the number eight spark plug and thus within the time frame that Mr.

Corona estimated that the newly replaced spark plug might foul out. Moreover, in

his closing, Mr. Seals agreed that the explanation offered by Mr. Corona “could

possibly be why the spark plugs were black and not because [NOLA Automotive

Repairs] failed to replace them.” Therefore, we find Mr. Seals failed to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that NOLA Automotive Repairs failed to conform

to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty element) or caused any damage to

his vehicle’s engine (the damages element).

Last, Mr. Seals argues in his Petition that NOLA Automotive Repairs

additionally charged a non-itemized $26.39 fee for “shop supplies.” Louisiana

Revised Statute La. R.S. 32:1263, which is entitled “[m]otor vehicle repairs,”

authorizes a mechanic shop to charge a non-itemized “shop supplies” fee of the

lesser of 10% of the total invoice or $50. Specifically, La. R.S. 32:1263 provides in

pertinent part:

Suppliers of mechanical repairs and services for any vehicle subject
to regulation pursuant to this Chapter shall provide each consumer
with an itemized bill indicating repairs and services performed, parts
replaced, materials used, the total labor charge, and the identity of the
mechanic, repairman, or supplier who performed the work. Nothing
in this Section shall prohibit a supplier of mechanical repairs and
services from charging a service fee for the use of shop supplies such
as rags, fender covers, small amounts of fluid, or other items which
are not itemized, provided that the fee does not exceed ten percent of

14

the total invoice for mechanical repairs or fifty dollars, whichever is
less.

However, the record reflects that Mr. Seals presented no testimony as to the total

invoice from NOLA Automotive Repairs nor does the record reflect that Mr. Seals

offered the invoice into evidence. Again, we conclude Mr. Seals failed to prove his

claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s September 16, 2022

judgment, which dismissed Mr. Seals’ claims against NOLA Automotive Repairs

with prejudice.

AFFIRMED

15