CA-0020-0520 Nonprecedential Granted Processed

James B. Blake" Cureton v. James H. "Jimmy" Cureton and Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc. "

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed January 5, 2022

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., October 13, 2021; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., December 16, 2020

Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

20-520

JAMES B. “BLAKE” CURETON

VERSUS

JAMES H. “JIMMY” CURETON AND

CUSTOM METAL FABRICATORS, INC.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2020-274
HONORABLE CLAYTON DAVIS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

ON REHEARING

**********

Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, D. Kent Savoie, and J. Larry Vidrine*,
Judges.

GRANTED.

_____________________

‫٭‬Honorable J. Larry Vidrine participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana
Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

p. 2

James A. Watson
3403 Patrick Street, Suite B
Lake Charles, LA 70605
(337) 474-4886
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
James H. “Jimmy” Cureton
Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc.

Todd Samuels Clemons
Todd Clemons And Associates
1740 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 477-0000
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
James B. “Blake” Cureton

Timothy O’Dowd
Jared W. Shumaker
924 Hodges Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 310-2304
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
James H. “Jimmy” Cureton
Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc.

Richard Dale Moreno
PO Box 149
Lake Charles, LA 70602-0149
(337) 433-9535
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
James H. “Jimmy” Cureton
Custom Metal Fabricators, Inc.

Philip A. Franco
Courtney C. Miller
Jeffrey E. Richardson
Kellen J. Mathews
Adams and Reese, LLP
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 581-3234
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
James B. “Blake” Cureton

p. 3

EZELL, Judge.

We now grant a rehearing on the application of Plaintiff, Blake Cureton, as

to whether he is entitled to attorney fees incurred in seeking an inspection of the

Corporation’s records. We now affirm the trial court’s award of attorney fees

insofar as it concerns Blake’s right to inspect corporate records.

On rehearing, Blake brought to our attention La.R.S. 12:1-

140(9)(B)(emphasis added), which defines “expenses” in the Business Corporation

Act as “reasonable expenses of any kind, including attorney’s fees and other

litigation-related expenses, which are incurred in connection with a matter.”

In our original opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering

inspection of the Corporations’ records. Pursuant to La.R.S. 12:1-1604(C), once

the court orders inspection of the records, the court “shall also order the

corporation to pay the shareholder’s expenses incurred to obtain the order”. Since

“expenses” are defined to included attorney fees, we find that Blake is entitled to

an award of attorney fees against the Corporation in connection with his inspection

of the Corporation’s records pursuant to La.R.S. 12:1-1604(C).

The rehearing application of Blake Cureton is granted, affirming the trial

court’s award of attorney fees as to the inspection of the Corporation’s records.

GRANTED.

p. 4