Christian Longo v. 700b8, Llc, Preston Tedesco, K.W.E.J., Llc, H.O.D.C., Llc, Continental Casualty Company, James River Insurance Company, And Gch, Llc (defendants And Defendant-petitioner, Hodc, Llc)

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 19, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
CHRISTIAN LONGO
VS.
700B8, LLC, PRESTON TEDESCO,
K.W.E.J., LLC, H.O.D.C., LLC,
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,
AND GCH, LLC (DEFENDANTS AND
DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, HODC, LLC)
No. 2024-CC-01262
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: HODC, LLC - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of Orleans Civil, Civil District Court Number(s) 2021 -09172, Court of Appeal,
Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2024-C-0346;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 19, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
JTK
WJC
JBM
PDG
JMG
02/19/2025 "See News Release 006 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-CC-01262

CHRISTIAN LONGO

VS.

700B8, LLC, PRESTON TEDESCO, K.W.E.J., LLC, H.O.D.C., LLC,
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, JAMES RIVER INSURANCE
COMPANY, AND GCH, LLC

On Supervisory Writ to the Orleans Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil

PER CURIAM

We ordered briefing in this matter to determine whether relator is entitled to
summary judgment on the ground plaintiff is unable to establish that any action or
inaction by relator caused the injury to plaintiff . For the reasons that follow, we
conclude summary judgment is warranted.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This lawsuit arises from an accident in which plaintiff, Christian Longo, fell
off of the second story screened porch of his leased New Orleans apartment. At the
time of the accident, the property was owned by 700B8, LLC (“700B8”). 700B8
hired Preston Tedesco to manage the property. As a licensed real estate agent, Mr.
Tedesco was associated with HODC, LLC, d/b/a Keller Williams Realty New
Orleans (“Keller Williams”). However, he managed the property through his
company, Broadway Management, LLC (“Broadway Management”).
As a result of the accident, plaintiff filed suit against several defendants,
including Keller Williams . Plaintiff took the position that Keller Williams was
vicariously liable because Mr. Tedesco was acting in the course and scope of his
employment.

2

After discovery, Keller Williams filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing Mr. Tedesco was not acting within the course and scope of his contractual
relationship with Keller Williams . In support, Keller Williams attached the
deposition of Mr. Tedesco in which he testified that Keller Williams had no
knowledge of his management of the property, that he did not seek or obtain prior
authorization or approval from Keller Williams to manage the property, and that
Keller Williams received no financial benefit, compensation, or commission arising
out of Mr. Tedesco’s management of the property.
Plaintiff opposed the motion, maintaining that under Louisiana law, in order
to practice as a real estate agent, one must be sponsored by a broker – here, Keller
Williams. During his time with Keller Williams, Mr. Tedesco performed his duties
for that company. As a result, plaintiff maintained Keller Williams, as Mr. Tedesco’s
employer, is vicariously liable for his actions in this case. Moreover, plaintiff
submits Mr. Tedesco’s knowledge was imputed to Keller Williams as his principal.
After a hearing, the district court denied summary judgment. In oral reasons
for judgment, the court stated, in part:
I believe that there is [sic] some general issue of material
fact that the jury should be allowed to hear all of the
evidence and make credibility determinations whether or
not Tedesco was an agent of [Keller Williams] while
managing the property. And, Two , whether [Keller
Williams] was independently negligent in its failure to
oversee its agent.

Keller Williams sought supervisory review of the district court’s judgment.
The court of appeal denied the writ.
Upon Keller Williams’ application to this court, we ordered written briefing
pursuant to the provisions of La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(H). Having received briefs

3

from both parties, we now review the district court's ruling on the motion for
summary judgment on the merits.1

DISCUSSION
A ruling on a motion for summary judgment is reviewed under a de novo
standard, with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the district
court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether
there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Diaz-Molina v. Flower , 2023-01135 (La. 12/19/23),
374 So. 3d 950, 952; Catzen v. Toney, 2022-01261 (La. 1/18/23), 352 So. 3d 972,
974; Jones v. Whips Elec., LLC , 2022-01035 (La. 11/22/22), 350 So. 3d 846, 848;
Guidry v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 2019-1999 (La. 2/26/20), 289 So. 3d 1026, 1027.
Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(D)(1), the burden on the party moving for
summary judgment “does not require him to negate all essential elements of the
adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court the
absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s
claim, action, or defense.” See Reynolds v. Bordelon, 2014-2371 (La. 6/30/15), 172
So. 3d 607, 610–11. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported,
an adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but
his response, by affidavits or otherwise, must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial. La. Code Civ. P. art. 967(B); Bufkin v. Felipe's
Louisiana, LLC, 2014-0288 (La. 10/15/14), 171 So. 3d 851, 858. Once a motion for
summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the failure of

1 Plaintiff filed a motion for oral argument After careful consideration, we deny the motion.

4

the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the
granting of the motion. Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc ., 2008 -0528 (La.
12/2/08), 995 So. 2d 1184, 1187 (citing Babin v. Winn–Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 2000-
0078 (La. 6/30/00), 764 So. 2d 37, 40).
In its motion for summary judgment, Keller Williams asserted plaintiff cannot
prove an essential element of his claim because he is unable to establish that Keller
Williams was vicariously liable for Mr. Tedesco’s actions. Keller Williams’ motion
was supported by the depositions of Mr. Tedesco and John Hamide, the sole member
of 700B8, who both testified that Mr. Tedesco alone, and not Keller Williams,
financially benefitted from Mr. Tedesco’s management of the property at issue. Mr.
Tedesco further testified that he was not acting within the ambit of his duties as a
real estate agent in managing the property and that he was acting solely on behalf of
Broadway Management, as an authorized representative and agent of 700B8.
Because Keller Williams properly supported its motion for summary
judgment, the burden shifted to plaintiff to set forth specific facts showing there is a
genuine issue for trial. Plaintiff argued the contract between Mr. Tedesco and Keller
Williams was one of mandate. As such, plaintiff suggests Keller Williams had
exclusive control over Mr. Tedesco as his broker because he would not be able to
act as a real estate agent in compliance with Louisiana law without Keller Williams’
sponsorship.
However, plaintiff offered no factual support for his contention that Mr.
Tedesco was acting as a real estate agent in managing the property. To the contrary,
Mr. Tedesco’s testimony clearly established that he was acting solely in his capacity
as a representative of 700B8, not as a real estate agent under the ambit of his contract
with Keller Williams. Plaintiff produced no affidavits or other evidence which would
indicate there is any material factual dispute on this issue.

5

In sum, we find Keller Williams has satisfied its burden on summary judgment
by establishing the absence of factual support for an essential element of plaintiff’s
claim. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence of a material factual dispute.
Summary judgment in favor of Keller Williams is therefore mandated.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgment of the district court is reversed. Summary judgment is granted, dismissing
the claims of plaintiff, Christian Longo, against HODC, LLC, d/b/a Keller Williams
Realty New Orleans with prejudice.