Mike Smith, Husband of/and Nancy Smith, Twila Simmons and Gerard Ordoyne v. Pierre Ellis, Wilbert Ellis, Siddique Muhammed, Allstate Insurance Company, Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange and James River Insurance Company
Mike Smith, Husband of/and Nancy Smith, Twila Simmons and Gerard Ordoyne v. Pierre Ellis, Wilbert Ellis, Siddique Muhammed, Allstate Insurance Company, Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange and James River Insurance Company, No. 2023-C-0455 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. Aug. 22, 2023).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Construction Co. 179 So. 3d 791
Opinion text
MIKE SMITH, HUSBAND * NO. 2023-C-0455
OF/AND NANCY SMITH,
TWILA SIMMONS AND *
GERARD ORDOYNE COURT OF APPEAL
*
VERSUS FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
PIERRE ELLIS, WILBERT STATE OF LOUISIANA
ELLIS, SIDDIQUE *******
MUHAMMED, ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTER-
INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND
JAMES RIVER INSURANCE
COMPANY
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2019-01882, DIVISION “C”
Honorable Sidney H. Cates, Judge
******
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase
******
On Application for Rehearing
(Court composed of Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge
Dale N. Atkins)
R. Todd Musgraves
Amanda Aucoin
Adam J. Boyer
MUSGRAVE, MCCLACHAN, & PENN, L.L.C
1555 Poydras St., Suite 2100
New Orleans, Louisiana
70112
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR/DEFENDANT
Bailey D. Morse
JOHN FUSSELL, L.L.P.
1001 Service Road East, Hwy. 190
North Lake Corporate Park, Suite 103
Covington, Louisiana
70433
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
Travis B. Wilkinson
TAYLOR WELLONS POLITZ & DUHE, APLC
1555 Poydras St. Suite, 2000
New Orleans, Louisiana
70112
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
REHEARING GRANTED; WRIT DENIED
AUGUST 22, 2023
TGC
PAB
DNA
On July 18, 2023 Relator, Muhammed Siddique (hereinafter “Mr.
Siddique”), filed an application for supervisory writs seeking review of the trial
court’s June 16, 2023 ruling denying his motion for summary judgment. Mr.
Siddique’s writ application failed to contain a signed judgment and a signed notice
of intent as required by Rules 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.
This Court subsequently issued an order on July 18, 2023 requiring Mr. Siddique
to supplement his writ application with a signed judgment and a signed notice of
intent by July 26, 2023. Mr. Siddique failed to timely comply. Thus, the
application for supervisory review was denied on July 28, 2023 for failing to
comply with Rules 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.
On August 4, 2023, Mr. Siddique filed an application for rehearing of
supervisory writs. The application for rehearing included a signed judgment of the
trial court’s June 16, 2023 ruling. The application for rehearing also included a
signed notice of intent. Thus, Mr. Siddique’s application for supervisory writs now
1
complies with Rules 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.
Therefore, we hereby grant the application for rehearing of supervisory writs.
Mr. Siddique’s application for supervisory writs seeks review of the trial
court’s June 16, 2023 ruling denying his motion for summary judgment. The
underlying issue in the matter sub judice involves a two car accident on February
23, 2018 (hereinafter “the February accident”). Mr. Siddique, an Uber driver, and
four guest passengers were involved in a car accident with Wilbert Ellis
(hereinafter “Mr. Ellis”).
Mr. Siddique file a motion for summary judgment averring he was not at
fault for the February accident as his vehicle was struck when Mr. Ellis failed to
yield. After reviewing the pleadings and evidence presented, the trial court
determined that genuine issues of material fact exist as to Mr. Siddique’s alleged
fault in the February accident and denied the motion for summary judgment.
“Appellate courts review the grant or denial of a motion for summary
judgment de novo, using the same criteria applied by the trial court to determine
whether summary judgment is appropriate.” Chatelin v. Fluor Daniel Const. Co.,
2014-1312, p.3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/10/15), 179 So.3d 791, 793. Our de novo review
indicates that genuine issues of material fact exist as to fault. Finding that the trial
court did not err, Mr. Siddique’s application for supervisory writs is denied.
REHEARING
GRANTED;
WRIT DENIED
2