Orlando Batiste v. Super China Buffet Inc., Nautilus Insurance Company and/or Murphy Insurance and Dollar Distributing

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
ORLANDO BATISTE NO. 2024 CW 0086

VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2

SUPER CHINA BUFFET INC.,
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY
AND/OR MURPHY INSURANCE AND MARCH 25, 2024
DOLLAR DISTRIBUTING

In Re: Dollar Distributing, Inc., applying for supervisory
writs, 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of West
Baton Rouge, No. 1046800.

BEFORE: WELCH, THERIOT, WOLFE, MILLER, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WRIT DENIED.

JEW
MRT

Miller, J. , concurs with the denial of the writ.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966 (C) (3) provides
that the court shall render a judgment on the motion not less
than twenty days prior to the trial. The district court ordered
a written judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1914 (B). There
is no signed judgment before this court. The district court
noted that the proposed judgment filed by relator did "not
conform with the Court's ruling" and subsequently issued a
Clarification of Ruling and Written Reasons. However, these
reasons do not constitute a judgment, nor do they clearly set
forth the court's ruling.

Wolfe and Stromberg, JJ., dissent and would grant the writ.
The district court failed to rule on the objections by
defendant, Dollar Distributing, Inc. ("Dollar"), to Exhibits 1,
2, 3, 4 and 7 filed by defendant, Super China Buff et, Inc.
("Super China"). See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(0) (2). Upon de
novo review, we would find the objections to these exhibits
should have been sustained, because the documents are not
certified or otherwise authenticated. See La. Code Civ. P. art.
966 (A) (4). The motion for summary judgment was filed by Dollar,
the owner of the property at issue, pursuant to La. R.S. 9:3221,
which provides that the owner of premises leased under a
contract whereby the lessee, in this case Super China, assumes
responsibility for their condition, is not liable for injury
caused by any defect therein to the lessee or anyone on the
premises who derives the right to be thereon from the lessee,
unless the owner knew or should have known of the defect or had
received notice thereof and failed to remedy it within a
reasonable time. There is no dispute that the lease between
Dollar and Super China provides that Super China, as lessee,
assumed full and complete responsibility for all repairs,
replacements and maintenance of the leased premises, including
the parking lot. Dollar filed an affidavit attesting that the
location where plaintiff fell is encompassed in the area covered
by the lease with Super China. Plaintiff and Super China argue

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2024 CW 0086

PAGE 2 OF 2

the lease inadequately defined the parking lot area included in
the lease, but failed to produce sufficient factual support to
establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as
to this issue. While plaintiff argues there is an issue of fact
as to whether Dollar had constructive notice of the alleged
defect, arguing the affidavit filed by Dollar did not address
constructive notice, the affidavit attests that Dollar did not
have notice of any vices, defects or ruin in the parking lot at
Super China. Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient factual
support to establish the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact as to this issue. Moreover, the jurisprudence
interpreting La. R.S. 9:3221 does not support the imposition of
a duty on the part of a lessor to inspect conditions over which
a lessee has assumed responsibility. Stuckey v. Riverstone
Residential SC, LP, 2008-1770 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/5/09), 21
So.3d 970, writ denied, 2009-2328 (La. 1/8/10), 24 So.3d 873;
Scott v. Adams, 2021-0589 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/17/22), 340 So.3d
1091, 1097, writ denied, 2022-00448 (La. 5/10/22), 337 So.3d
908. Therefore, we would grant the motion for summary judgment
and dismiss plaintiff's claims against defendant, Dollar
Distributing, Inc.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT