Sanctuary Capital, LLC, on Behalf of North Louisiana BIDCO, LLC v. Richard D. Cloud, James Randolph Garner, and North Louisiana BIDCO, LLC

Judgment rendered January 11, 2023.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

*****

ON REMAND

*****

No. 54,364-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****
SANCTUARY CAPITAL, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees
ET AL., ON BEHALF OF NORTH
LOUISIANA BIDCO, LLC

versus

RICHARD D. CLOUD, JAMES Defendants-Appellants
RANDOLPH GARNER, AND
NORTH LOUISIANA BIDCO, LLC

*****
On Remand from the
Louisiana Supreme Court

Originally Appealed from the
Fourth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2014-1379

Honorable Daniel Joseph Ellender, Judge

*****

RICHARD A. ROZANSKI, APLC Counsel for Appellant,
By: Richard A. Rozanski North Louisiana Bidco, LLC

BREITHAUPT, DUBOS, & Counsel for Appellants,
WOLLESON, LLC Richard D. Cloud and
By: R. Alan Breithaupt Nephos, LLC
James R. Close

HECK LAW FIRM, LLP Counsel for Appellant,
By: Charles H. Heck, Sr. Robert Lawler Garner, Executor
Charles H. Heck, Jr. for the Succession of James
Randolph Garner

NELSON, ZENTNER, Counsel for Appellees,
SARTOR & SNELLINGS Sanctuary Capital, LLC,
By: David H. Nelson J. Bishop Johnston, W. Clinton
George M. Snellings, IV Raspberry, Jr., MCS Two, LLC,
O. A. Cannon, Jr., Nelson
D. Abell, III, R. Stewart Ewing,
Jr., Carolyn W. Perry, Annette
Williams Carroll, Molly
Williams, and Clarke M.
Williams, III, on Behalf of
North Louisiana Bidco, LLC

*****

Before STONE, COX, and O’CALLAGHAN (Ad Hoc), JJ.

COX, J.

This suspensive appeal arises out of the Fourth JDC, Ouachita Parish,

Louisiana. The plaintiffs in this case are as follows: Sanctuary Capital,

LLC, J. Bishop Johnston, W. Clinton Raspberry, Jr., MCS Two, LLC, O. A.

Cannon, Jr., Nelson D. Abel, III, R. Stewart Ewing, Jr., Carolyn W. Perry,

Annette Williams Carroll, Molly Williams, Clark M. Williams, III, and

North Louisiana BIDCO, LLC (“NLB”) (collectively referred to as

“Plaintiffs”). The defendants are Richard Cloud, James Randolph Garner,

and NLB (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Defendants appealed

the trial court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, which allowed Plaintiffs

access to business records and deferred Plaintiffs’ claim for attorney fees.

This Court previously affirmed the trial court’s judgment on April 5, 2022.1

However, unbeknownst to this Court, Mr. Garner passed away on

March 30, 2022. Therefore, on writ application, the Louisiana Supreme

Court nullified and vacated the decision as it applied to Mr. Garner. The

Supreme Court remanded back to this Court for such action as the law

permits, including the substitution of Mr. Garner’s legal successor and, upon

such substitution, an evaluation of whether Plaintiffs’ claims against Mr.

Garner abated or extinguished by his death or a decision in favor of or

against the properly substituted party. On October 22, 2022, Robert Lawler

Garner, the surviving son of Mr. Garner, filed a motion to substitute the

proper party defendant/appellant. After considering the issues, we find that

Plaintiffs’ claims against Mr. Garner were not extinguished by his death,

1
Sanctuary Capital, LLC v. Cloud, 54,364 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/5/2022), 336 So. 3d
1040, writ granted, decision vacated sub nom., 2022-00751 (La. 9/20/2022), 345 So. 3d
1023, and writ denied, 2022-00750 (La. 9/20/2022), 346 So. 3d 283.

grant the motion to substitute, and affirm the judgment of the trial court as to

the properly substituted defendant/appellant.

DISCUSSION

All the facts have previously been cited in Sanctuary Capital, LLC v.

Cloud, supra, and we adopt those facts in this opinion. We now address

whether this action abated against Mr. Garner.

An action does not abate on the death of a party. The only exception

to this rule is an action to enforce a right or obligation which is strictly

personal. La. C.C.P. art. 428. Because Louisiana strongly favors the

continuation of actions on the death of a party, the exceptions to the rule

against abatement are limited by La. C.C.P. Art. 428 to actions to enforce

rights or obligations which are strictly personal. La C.C. Art. 1766 provides

that “[a]n obligation is strictly personal when its performance can be

enforced only by the obligee, or only against the obligor.” Draper v.

Draper, 554 So. 2d 79 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1989).

This is the first stage of this litigation. The Defendants were ordered

to turn over the books and records for inspection, which is essential for

Plaintiffs to determine whether any damages have been suffered. This suit

also presents an LLC that no longer has an independent office to house all

the documents. Documents are therefore held by the managers. Mr. Garner,

as a manager of NLB, could have had NLB books and records in his

possession at the time of his death. Therefore, although Mr. Garner’s

succession representative will not automatically become a manager of NLB,

that representative is ordered to present any books and records found to be in

Mr. Garner’s possession at the time of his death.

2

This is not an instance where Mr. Garner was ordered to perform a

task so personal to him that no one else could do it. The production of

documents in Mr. Garner’s possession is an obligation that can be performed

by a representative with access to Mr. Garner’s possessions. Therefore, Mr.

Garner’s succession representative will remain a defendant in this action

unless it is later determined that no claims exist against the succession or

Mr. Garner personally. For these reasons, the claims against Mr. Garner are

not extinguished.

Robert Lawler Garner, the surviving son of Mr. Garner, filed a motion

to substitute the proper party defendant/appellant. This motion was referred

to the merits of the appeal. Because the motion to substitute satisfies the

requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 801, the motion to substitute is hereby

granted. Robert Lawler Garner, as succession representative of James

Randolph Garner, is substituted as a defendant/appellant in this appeal.

We adopt the previous opinion’s reasoning as it applied to Mr. Garner

and now affirm the trial court’s judgment against the properly-substituted

defendant Robert Lawler Garner insofar as the Louisiana Supreme Court

nullified that opinion as it applied to Mr. Garner.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, this action has not abated against James

Randolph Garner. The motion to substitute is granted. Robert Lawler

Garner, as Independent Testamentary Executor of the succession, is

substituted as a defendant/appellant in this appeal in lieu of his deceased

parent, James Randolph Garner. Pursuant to this Court’s reasoning in its

previous opinion, the ruling of the trial court is affirmed as to the properly

substituted defendant/appellant. Robert Lawler Garner is ordered to present
3

any NLB documents that were in James Randolph Garner’s possession at the

time of his death. This Court’s previous opinion in Sanctuary Capital, LLC

v. Cloud, supra is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

4