Rick M. Sutton, Individually and Drivately on Behalf of Rjano Holdings, Inc. and Maison Royale, LLC v. Jack Adams, Maison Royale, LLC and Rjano, Inc.

RICK M. SUTTON, * NO. 2024-CA-0287
INDIVIDUALLY AND
DERIVATELY ON BEHALF *
OF RJANO HOLDINGS, INC. COURT OF APPEAL
AND MAISON ROYALE, LLC *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
VERSUS *
STATE OF LOUISIANA
JACK ADAMS, MAISON *******
ROYALE, LLC AND RJANO,
INC.

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

JACK ADAMS NO. 2024-CA-0288

VERSUS

RICK M. SUTTON
CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

RICK M. SUTTON, NO. 2024-CA-0387
INDIVIDUALLY AND
DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF
RJANO HOLDINGS, INC. AND
MAISON ROYALE, LLC

VERSUS

JACK ADAMS, MAISON ROYALE,
LLC AND RJANO, INC.
CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

JACK ADAMS NO. 2024-CA-0390

VERSUS

RICK SUTTON
APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2014-10709, DIVISION “N-8”
HONORABLE Guy Holdridge
******
Judge Daniel L. Dysart
******
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Dale N. Atkins, Judge Karen K.
Herman)

Robert G. Harvey, Sr.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. HARVEY, SR., APLC
600 North Carrollton Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/RICK SUTTON

James M. Garner
Joshua S. Force
Stuart D. Kottle
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street
28th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/KIM BOYLE AND PHELPS DUNBAR,
LLP

Stephanie M. Poucher
Allen C. Miller, Sr.
Kim M. Boyle
PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 2000
New Orleans, LA 70130

Charles L. Rice, Jr.
RICE LAW GROUP, LLC
3501 Tulane Ave
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/JACK ADAMS

REVERSED
MARCH 21, 2025

DLD Appellants, Jack Adams, Kim Boyle and the law firm of Phelps Dunbar,
DNA
LLP, appeal the trial court’s judgment of January 31, 2024, finding counsel for Mr.
KKH
Adams, Ms. Boyle, in contempt of court. The judgment also disqualified Ms.

Boyle’s law firm, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, from representing any party in this matter,

and decreed that the order of contempt would be purged by Phelps Dunbar’s

withdrawal from the case.

This matter is the latest chapter in ongoing litigation stemming from a failed

business venture. In 2011, Rick Sutton and Jack Adams entered into a business

relationship regarding the operation/creation of a jewelry shop and art gallery on

Royal Street. They formalized their agreement through the formation of business

entities named RJANO Holdings, Inc. and Maison Royale, LLC. RJANO was the

entity that leased the property and Maison Royale was the entity that operated the

business. The relationship between Mr. Sutton and Mr. Adams deteriorated and

numerous lawsuits have followed.1

1 Previous reported decisions in this matter include: Sutton v. Adams, 2019-0992 (La.App. 4 Cir.

10/12/22), 351 So.3d 427; Sutton v. Adams, 2019-0975 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/12/22), 351 So.3d
403; Adams v. Sutton, 2019-0247 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/12/22), 350 So.3d 1041; Adams v. Sutton,
2019-1105, 2019-0796, 2019-0851 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/12/22), 351 So.3d 391; Sutton v. Adams,
2019-0795, 2019-0845 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/12/22), 351 So.3d 411; Sutton v. Adams, 2022-1677,
2022-1674, 2022-1672 (La. 3/7/23), 356 So.3d 1038; Sutton v. Adams 2022-1673 (La. 3/7/23),

1

In the instant matter, Mr. Sutton filed a motion to disqualify two attorneys

representing collectively Mr. Adams, RJANO and Maison Royale. One of those

attorneys is Ms. Boyle, one of the appellants herein. In a November 10, 2021 trial

court order, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. In that order, the

trial court stated, “[Ms. Boyle] is not disqualified from representing any plaintiff or

defendant in this matter whatsoever; however, it is hereby ordered that Ms. Boyle

withdraw her representation of either [Mr. Adams] or RJANO and Maison Royale.

Ms. Boyle will no longer be permitted to represent both the individual and the

corporations simultaneously.” In reasons for judgment, the trial court found that

throughout this litigation, Mr. Adams made several decisions regarding the

corporations that were detrimental to the corporations. Therefore, he found that

Mr. Adams, individually, and the corporations have divergent interests and, as a

result, cannot be represented by the same counsel without conflict.

Following the November 10, 2021 order, Ms. Boyle represented all three

parties on two more occasions, once at an oral argument before this Court and

another time on a motion for extension of time on a writ application before the

Louisiana Supreme Court. Mr. Sutton subsequently filed a motion for contempt,

moving for an order holding Ms. Boyle in contempt of the court’s order. In the

motion, Mr. Sutton argued that Ms. Boyle failed to withdraw as ordered and

continued to represent all three parties following the issuance of the order. Ms.

Boyle opposed the motion, arguing that Mr. Sutton could not prove that she

violated the court’s order or, alternatively, he could not prove that any violation

was intentional, knowing, purposeful, and without justifiable excuse. Mr. Sutton

356 So.3d 1005; and RJANO Holdings, Inc. v. Phelps Dunbar, LLP, 2022-0058 (La.App. 4 Cir.
9/21/22), 366 So.3d 499.

2

also filed a separate motion to disqualify Ms. Boyle from representing the interest

of any plaintiff or defendant in this matter, arguing she had a conflict of interest in

advancing the interests of one client, Mr. Adams, to the detriment of her other two

clients, RJANO and Maison Royale.

While these motions were under advisement, the matter was stayed pending

bankruptcy proceedings in federal court. After the stay was lifted, the trial court

rendered judgment on January 31, 2024, disqualifying the law firm of Phelps

Dunbar from representing any party in this matter, citing the cases of Walker v.

State of Louisiana, DOTD, 01-2078 (La. 5/14/02), 817 So.2d 57, and Corbello v.

Iowa Production Co., 00-1403 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/01), 787 So.2d 596. The court

granted Mr. Sutton’s motion for contempt and decreed that the order of contempt

would be purged by Phelps Dunbar’s withdrawal from the case. In reasons for

judgment, the court stated that in its November 2021 order, it had offered Ms.

Boyle the opportunity to decide which client or clients she would continue to

represent and then other counsel would be needed to represent the others. The

court also stated that no appeal was taken from that order, yet Phelps Dunbar,

through attorney Ms. Boyle, filed a motion on behalf of all three parties at the

Louisiana Supreme Court in November 2022.

Ms. Boyle, Phelps Dunbar, and their client, Mr. Adams, now appeal. On

appeal, Ms. Boyle and Phelps Dunbar assert three assignments of error:

1) The trial court erred by granting a motion for contempt because Mr.
Sutton did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ms. Boyle
intentionally, knowingly, purposefully, and without justification
violated a court order;

2) The trial court erred by imposing a legally improper punishment for
the alleged (and unproven) contempt; and

3

3) The trial court erred by punishing Phelps Dunbar for the alleged (and
unproven) contempt without providing notice, as required by law.

Mr. Adams asserts the following three assignments of error:

1) The trial court erred in granting the motion for contempt because Mr.
Sutton did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ms. Boyle
intentionally, knowingly, purposefully, and without justification
violated a court order;

2) The trial court erred in granting Mr. Sutton’s motion for contempt
without reciting the facts upon which the court based its contempt
finding, failing to state whether it affirmatively adjudged Ms. Boyle
guilty of contempt, and making no findings whatsoever as to whether
the unspecified actions it (presumably) found to be contemptuous
were undertaken willfully, thereby depriving Mr. Adams of his right
to the counsel of his choice without due process; and

3) The trial court erred by disqualifying Ms. Boyle, and the entirety of
Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which was an improper and disproportionately
punitive remedy for Ms. Boyle’s (unproven) contempt.

Mr. Sutton, the appellee herein, argues that the appellants mistakenly focus

on the burden of proof for a finding of criminal contempt, when the finding of

contempt here was civil in nature. Mr. Sutton also argues that disqualification was

the proper penalty here because Ms. Boyle and Phelps Dunbar were operating

under an order, which found that they had a conflict of interest, and which order

they did not appeal. Mr. Sutton further argues that this appeal is moot because

appellants failed to appeal or dispute the finding of a conflict of interest, and have

already purged themselves of any finding of contempt by withdrawing as counsel

as per the court’s November 10, 2021 order.

The only judgment that is properly before this Court in this appeal is the

judgment of January 31, 2024. In that judgment, the trial court granted Mr.

Sutton’s motion for contempt against Ms. Boyle2 and ordered the disqualification

2 Addressing Mr. Adams’ argument that the trial court failed to state whether it affirmatively

adjudged Ms. Boyle guilty of contempt, we find the judgment is clear that is the case as the

4

of Ms. Boyle’s law firm, Phelps Dunbar, LLP, from representing any party in this

matter. The motion for contempt at issue stated as follows:

NOW INTO COURT COMES plaintiff Rick M. Sutton
(“Sutton”), through undersigned counsel, who moves for entry of an
order holding counsel of record for Jack Adams (“Adam”), Ms. Kim
Boyle (“Boyle”), in contempt of this Court’s order of November 10,
2021, ordering her to withdraw from representing Jack Adams or
RJANO and Maison Royale.[] Following this November 10, 2021,
judgment, Boyle failed to withdraw as ordered; and in fact, continued
to represent all three parties in court, as more fully set out in the
attached memorandum.

WHEREFORE, after due hearing, Defendant, Rick Sutton
respectfully requests that this Court hold Ms. Kim Boyle in contempt
of court for violating this Court’s order of November 11 [sic], 2021,
and grant relief as prayed for in the accompanying memorandum.

In the accompanying memorandum, the remedy requested by Mr. Sutton

was for Ms. Boyle to be disqualified from representing any party in this matter due

to her willful and intentional disregard of the trial court’s November 10, 2021

order and refusal to avoid a conflict of interest even after being ordered to do so by

the trial court. Phelps Dunbar, LLC was not named in the motion for contempt.

In Joseph v. Entergy, 07-0688, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/5/07), 972 So. 2d

1230, 1235-36, this Court summarized the general principles regarding contempt

as follows:

Contempt of court proceedings in civil cases are governed by
La. C.C.P. art. 221, et seq., which define contempt as “any act or
omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly
administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or
respect for its authority.” The Code of Civil Procedure provides for
two kinds of contempt, direct and constructive. Direct contempt of
court is defined in La. C.C.P. art. 222 as “one committed in the
immediate view and presence of the court and of which it has personal
knowledge, or a contumacious failure to comply with a subpoena or
summons, proof of service of which appears of record.” Constructive
contempt of court is any contempt other than a direct one, including

judgment granted the motion for contempt and Ms. Boyle was the only party alleged to have
been in contempt.

5

the “[w]willful [sic] disobedience of any lawful judgment, order,
mandate, writ, or process of the court.” La. C.C.P. art. 224(2).

In Marullo v. Extreme Motor Sports of New Orleans, LLC, 23-0157, pp. 3-4

(La.App. 4 Cir. 10/25/23), 376 So.3d 964, 967-968, this Court detailed the law

regarding the nature of contempt proceedings and burden of proof as follows:

Our review of this case hinges on the nature of the contempt
proceeding that took place. “Contempt of court proceedings are either
criminal or civil” in nature. Succession of Bailey, 2020-0145, p. 5 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 11/18/20), 311 So. 3d 422, 425 (citing Dazet Mortg. Sols.
LLC v. Faia, 2012-486, p. 7 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/10/13), 116 So. 3d 711,
717). To determine the nature of a contempt proceeding, the appellate
court must look to “the nature of the punishment imposed—that is,
whether the punishment is remedial or punitive.” Streiffer v. Deltatech
Constr., LLC, 2019-0990, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/25/20), 294 So. 3d
564, 572. In a civil suit, a contempt proceeding is civil in nature if the
purpose of the proceeding is to force compliance with a court order,
but it is criminal in nature if the purpose is to punish disobedience of a
court order. Parish of Jefferson v. Lafreniere Park Found., 1998-345,
p. 8 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/15/98), 720 So. 2d 359, 364 (citations omitted).
Civil contempt is remedial in nature and is imposed for the benefit of
the complainant, whereas criminal contempt is punitive in nature and
meant to vindicate the authority of the court. Streiffer, 2019-0990, p.
8, 294 So. 3d at 572 (quoting Hicks ex rel. Feiock v. Feiock, 485 U.S.
624, 631, 108 S. Ct. 1423, 1429, 99 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988)).
Furthermore, if the court orders that a fine be imposed, the fine is
considered remedial when it is paid to the complainant and punitive
when it is paid to the court. Id. (quoting Hicks ex rel. Feiock, 485 U.S.
at 632, 108 S. Ct. at 1429.

In a civil contempt proceeding, the mover must prove the
contempt through a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at p. 9, 294 So.
3d at 573 (citing Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827, 114 S. Ct. 2552, 2557, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994)).
When a district court holds a party in civil contempt, the appellate
court will review the ruling under a manifest error standard and, if
sufficient evidence was presented, the appellate court will only
reverse the ruling if it can find that the district court abused its
discretion. Id. at p. 9, 294 So. 3d at 573 (citations omitted). However,
if the district court holds a party in criminal contempt, the role of the
appellate court is to review the evidence in a light most favorable to
the mover and determine whether the evidence “was sufficient for a
rational trier of fact to conclude that every element of the contempt
charge was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Billiot v. Billiot,
2001-1298, p. 5 (La. 1/25/02), 805 So. 2d 1170, 1174 (citing State in

6

Interest of R.J.S., 493 So. 2d 1199, 1202 (La. 1986)). In a criminal
contempt proceeding, the mover bears the burden of proving the
elements of the contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v.
Mitchell, 2015-169, p. 4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/28/15), 178 So. 3d 203,
206 (citing Hicks ex rel. Feiock, 485 U.S. at 632, 108 S. Ct. at 1429-
30).

In this matter, the contempt alleged by Mr. Sutton against Ms. Boyle was

one of constructive contempt. Although a trial court has discretion to determine

whether to find a person guilty of constructive contempt of court, a finding that a

person willfully disobeyed a court order in violation of La. C.C.P. art. 224(2) must

be based on a finding that the accused violated an order of the court “intentionally,

knowingly, and purposefully, without justifiable excuse.” Joseph, 08-0855, pp. 5-

6, 1 So. 3d 748, 752 (citing Lang v. Asten, Inc., 05-1119, p. 1 (La. 1/13/06), 918

So.2d 453, 454).

In our review of the judgment appealed from, we must first determine

whether these contempt proceedings were criminal or civil in nature. We conclude

that the wording of the contempt motion makes clear that the purpose of this

contempt proceeding was to punish Ms. Boyle for disobedience of a court order.

Therefore, because the punishment sought by Mr. Sutton against Ms. Boyle was

punitive in nature, rather than remedial, the contempt proceedings were criminal in

nature and Mr. Sutton had the burden of proving the elements of contempt beyond

a reasonable doubt.

A review of the transcript of the hearing on the motion for contempt reveals

that it did not include any testimonial or documentary evidence, but rather only

arguments of counsel. Because no evidence was presented at the hearing to

establish that Ms. Boyle willfully disobeyed an order of the court and did so

“intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, without justifiable excuse,” we

7

conclude that Mr. Sutton did not carry his burden of proving beyond a reasonable

doubt that Ms. Boyle was guilty of constructive contempt. “A finding of willful

disobedience on the basis of a total absence of proof is clearly erroneous.”

Fleming v. Armant, 12-0043, p. 8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/12), 97 So.3d 1071, 1076

(citing Riley v. Pennix, 442 So.2d 563, 565 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1983)). Accordingly,

we find the trial court erred in granting Mr. Sutton’s motion for contempt against

Ms. Boyle.

Furthermore, the remedy of disqualification sought by Mr. Sutton, and

granted by the trial court, is not authorized as relief under La. C.C.P. art. 227 and

La. R.S. 13:4611(1)(d), relative to punishment for constructive contempt.

La. C.C.P. art. 227 states as follows: “A person may not be adjudged guilty

of a contempt of court except for misconduct defined as such, or made punishable

as such, expressly by law. The punishment which a court may impose upon a

person adjudged guilty of contempt of court is provided in R.S. 13:4611.”

For a constructive contempt of court, La. R.S. 13:4611 authorizes

punishment of a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for

not more than three months, or more, except as otherwise provided by law.

In Marshall v. Marshall, 19-0879 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/14/20), 308 So.3d 1178,

the trustee of a charitable remainder trust was found in contempt and was removed

as trustee among other punishments imposed by the trial court. The trustee

appealed, and one of his arguments was that the judgment exceeded the limits of

punishment for contempt. He argued that the court was limited to punishing him

for contempt by imposing a fine and/or imprisonment as provided in La. R.S.

13:4611. The party who brought the contempt motion argued that La. R.S. 9:1789

provided an exception to La. R.S. 13:4611, in that it allowed a court to remove a

8

trustee for “sufficient cause.” But the appellate court reversed the judgment

insofar as it removed the appellant as trustee, noting that “the power to punish for

contempt of court shall be limited by law,” citing La. Const. art. 5, §2 (1974). The

court found that La. R.S. 9:1789 neither expressly provides that a court may

remove a trustee on its own motion nor does it allow such a remedy as part of a

contempt proceeding.

We find the Marshall case to be analogous to the instant matter. We have

found no exception provided by law for disqualification to be allowed as relief for

a finding of constructive contempt such as that brought against Ms. Boyle.

“Proceedings for contempt must be strictly construed, and the policy of our law

does not favor extending their scope.” Rogers v. Dickens, 06-0898, p. 8 (La.App. 1

Cir. 2/9/07), 959 So. 2d 940, 946 (citing Estate of Graham v. Levy, 93-0636, 93-

0134, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/8/94), 636 So.2d 287, 290). Furthermore, we note that

the cases cited by the trial court in reasons for judgment, Walker v. State of

Louisiana, DOTD, 2001-2078 (La. 5/14/02), 817 So.2d 57, and Corbello v. Iowa

Production Co., 2000-1403 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/01), 787 So.2d 596, did not involve

contempt proceedings and are, therefore, not applicable to the instant case.

Therefore, although we are reversing the contempt judgment because Mr.

Sutton failed to carry his burden of proof, we also note that disqualification is not

authorized as a remedy for constructive contempt under La. R.S. 13:4611 and there

is no exception applicable for the type of contempt alleged against Ms. Boyle.

We further note that Mr. Sutton’s rule to show cause for his contempt

motion only named Ms. Boyle and is silent as to her law firm, Phelps Dunbar,

LLC. But the judgment appealed from disqualified that entire law firm. La.

C.C.P. art. 225 states:

9

Except as otherwise provided by law, a person charged with
committing a constructive contempt of court may be found guilty
thereof and punished therefor only after the trial by the judge of a rule
against him to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of
contempt and punished accordingly. The rule to show cause may issue
on the court's own motion or on motion of a party to the action or
proceeding and shall state the facts alleged to constitute the contempt.

Phelps Dunbar, LLC was not provided notice of a contempt charge against it as

required by law, and as such, could not be found in contempt or punished for the

same.

Accordingly, because Mr. Sutton failed to carry his burden of proving

beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Boyle willfully disobeyed the November 10,

2021 court order, and did so intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, without

justifiable excuse, we find that the trial court erred in finding Ms. Boyle guilty of

constructive contempt. Additionally, as Mr. Sutton’s rule to show cause for his

contempt motion named only Ms. Boyle, thus denying Phelps Dunbar of the notice

required by law for a contempt charge, we also find the trial court erred in

disqualifying Phelps Dunbar, LLP, from representing any party in this matter. We

hereby reverse the trial court judgment of January 31, 2024.

REVERSED

10