Michelle Detraz v. Victor Lee D/B/A Virgin Nails

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

04-988
MICHELLE DETRAZ

VERSUS

VICTOR LEE D/B/A VIRGIN NAILS

**********
ON REMAND FROM THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20026019
HONORABLE HERMAN C. CLAUSE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, Michael
G. Sullivan, Billy Howard Ezell, and James T. Genovese, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Philip Stephen Aucoin, Jr.
Stacy S. Lee
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road - Suite 1400
Lafayette, LA 70508
Telephone: (337) 291-1743
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendants/Appellees - Bechin Huynh and Bechin Huynh, d/b/a
Virgin Nails

Chris Paul Villemarette
Scott M. Hawkins
Hawkins, Garbin & Villemarette, LLC
102 Asthma Boulevard - Saloom III
Suite 110
Lafayette, LA 70508
Telephone: (337) 233-8005
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellant - Michelle Detraz

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

After concluding that the jury was correct in failing to find causation in

this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded this case so that we may “consider

the plaintiff’s remaining assignments of error.” Detraz v. Lee, d/b/a Virgin Nails, 05-

1263, p. 12 (La. 1/17/07), ___ So.2d ___.

The plaintiff entreats us to find that the trial court’s failure to bring the

jury into the courtroom to review the alleged inconsistent testimony of Dr. Ronald

Daigle was reversible error. We decline the plaintiff’s invitation. While the trial

court incorrectly refused to allow the jurors back into the courtroom, La.Code Civ.P.

art. 1795 accords discretionary power to the trial court. Even if the jurors were

brought into the courtroom, Section B of Article 1795 does not mandate that the trial

judge must allow the reading of the requested testimony.

The plaintiff further complains that the alternate juror should have been

discharged once the jury retired to begin deliberations. We agree. However, the

record fails to disclose that the alternate juror participated in the deliberations. The

alternate juror’s mere presence during jury deliberations was harmless.

CONCLUSION

Considering the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.