Troy Lillie v. Stanford Trust Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
TROY LILLIE, ET AL. NO. 2024 CW 0630

VERSUS
STANFORD TRUST COMPANY,
STATE OF LOUISIANA, OFFICE
OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, JULY 19, 2024
AND SEI INVESTMENTS COMPANY

In Re: Troy Lillie, et al., applying for supervisory writs,
19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge, No.581670.

BEFORE: CHUTZ, GREENE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

STAY DENIED; WRIT GRANTED. The portions of the trial court's
July 8, 2024 judgment, which granted Motion in Limine No. Four,
Motion in Limine Nos. Five and Nine, Motion in Limine No. Eight,
Motion in Limine No. Eleven, and the Motion to Strike Affirmative
Defenses filed by the plaintiffs, Troy Lillie, et al. (collectively
"Plaintiffs"), are reversed. Louisiana Civil Code article 2323
provides, in part, that in any action for damages where a person
suffers injury or loss, the degree or percentage of fault of all
persons causing or contributing to the injury or loss shall be
determined, regardless of whether the person is a party to the
action or a nonparty, which applies to any claim for recovery of
damages for injury or loss asserted under any law or legal doctrine
or theory of liability, regardless of the basis of liability.
Although La. Civ. Code art. 2323 (C) states that, if a person
suffers injury, death, or loss as a result partly of his own
negligence and partly as a result of the fault of an intentional
tortfeasor, his claim for recovery of damages shall not be reduced,
"[n] othing in this section prevents the determination of the
percentage of fault of all persons causing or contributing to the
injury at issue." See Landry v. Bellanger, 2002-1443 (La. 5/20/03),
851 So.2d 943, 953. Accordingly, the trial court abused its
discretion in excluding evidence of the fault of Plaintiffs and
non-parties, and the motions in limine are denied. Additionally,
where the factors set forth in Horton v. Mccary, 635 So.2d 199,
203 (La. 1994) were not met in this case and where the State of
Louisiana, Office of Financial Institutions has complied with the
discovery order and produced the requested documents, we find the
trial court abused its discretion in granting the Motion to Strike
Affirmative Defenses, which is denied.

WRC
HG
TPS

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

~1~ FOR THE COURT