Donald F. Flores, Jr. Versus David B. Campbell; New Era Information Technologies, LLC; And Glen M. Feucht

DONALD F. FLORES, JR. NO. 21-CA-665

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

DAVID B. CAMPBELL; NEW ERA COURT OF APPEAL
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC;
AND GLEN M. FEUCHT STATE OF LOUISIANA

July 21, 2022

Susan Buchholz
First Deputy Clerk

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

Panel composed of Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois

REHEARING GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, WITH REASONS

SMC

REHEARING GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART WITH THE REASONS
SET FORTH BY J. CHEHARDY
JGG

CONCURS, IN PART, DISSENTS IN PART, WITH REASONS

FHW

CHEHARDY, C.J.

REHEARING GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART
In a timely application for rehearing, plaintiff-appellant Donald Flores,

individually and on behalf of New Era Information Technologies, LLC, argues that

interest should have been awarded from the date of judicial demand rather than the

date of judgment, citing Trans-Global Alloy Ltd. v. First Nat’l Bank of Jefferson

Par., 583 So.2d 443, 459 (La. 1991), and Semco, LLC v. Grand Ltd., 16-342 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 5/31/17), 221 So.3d 1004, 1039, writ denied, 17-1291 (La. 11/6/17),

229 So.3d 475, among others. We agree. Accordingly, we grant rehearing for the

limited purpose of modifying the decree to award interest from the date of judicial

demand. In all other respects, rehearing is denied.

21-CA-665 1

DONALD F. FLORES, JR. NO. 21-CA-665
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
DAVID B. CAMPBELL; NEW ERA COURT OF APPEAL
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC;
STATE OF LOUISIANA
AND GLEN M. FEUCHT

J., WICKER CONCURS IN PART, DISSENTS IN PART WITH

REASONS

While I concur in the majority’s decision to grant appellant Flores’

application for rehearing in part as to the issue of the point in litigation from

which judicial interest should run, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s

decision to deny in part Flores’ application for rehearing as it relates to the issue

of costs. I reiterate my position stated in my dissent from the majority’s opinion

and in my concurring opinion from the denial of the first application for

rehearing filed in this case—that the trial court here abused its La. C.C. Art.

1920 discretion in ordering each party to bear its own costs. This litigation was

necessitated by Campbell’s improper actions and the evidence demonstrated no

action by Flores to justify a deviation from the general rule that the prevailing

party is not assessed costs. Moreover, I previously stated, the trial court here in

its extensive oral reasons for judgment provided no articulable facts to support

the decision for each party to bear its own costs and I find no factual evidence to

support any finding that the “best interests of justice” would be served in

assessing costs against Flores under the facts of this case.

Accordingly, because it is my opinion that the trial court under the facts of

this case abused its discretion in assessing any costs against Flores, I respectfully

21-CA-665 1

dissent in part from the majority’s decision to deny Flores’ application for

rehearing as to the issue of whether the costs should be borne by each party in

this case.

21-CA-665 2

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 07/21/2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-CA-665
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Michael P. Mentz (District Judge)
Samuel Bradley Rhorer (Appellant) Daniel R. Martiny (Appellee) Albert J. Nicaud (Appellee)
Jeffrey M. Siemssen (Appellee)

MAILED
Honorable Robert J. Burns, Zachary S. Walker (Appellant) Bret D. Guepet, Jr. (Appellee)
Judge Pro Tempore (District Judge) Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
Judge Division "F" 10566 Airline Highway 3000 18th Street
24th Judicial District Court Baton Rouge, LA 70816 Metairie, LA 70002
4th Floor, Suite 4100
Gretna, LA 70053

Daniel B. Davis (Appellee)
Randall E. Estes (Appellee)
Attorneys at Law
4465 Bluebonnet Boulevard
Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809