Ahern Rentals, Inc. v. William K. Green

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

21-767

AHERN RENTALS, INC.

VERSUS

WILLIAM K. GREEN, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2020-1799
HONORABLE CLAYTON DAVIS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, D. Kent Savoie, and Van H. Kyzar,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

James F. DeRosier
DeRosier Law Firm, LLC
125 W. School Street
Lake Charles, LA 70605
(337) 474-0820
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS:
Scott Doyle Helms
Chadd Turnage

J. Michael Veron
Peyton F. Pawlicki
Veron Bice Palermo & Wilson, LLC
721 Kirby St.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 310-1600
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:
Veron Bice Palermo & Wilson, LLC

PICKETT, Judge.

Chadd Turnage, Scott Helms, and their attorney, James DeRosier, appeal the

judgment of the trial court awarding sanctions and attorney fees in the amount of

$7,500.00 pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 863.

FACTS

Ahern Rentals, Inc., (Ahern) provides rental equipment to industry clients in

the Lake Charles area. EquipmentShare.com, Inc., (EquipmentShare) a competing

company, hired salesmen who had worked as employees of Ahern. Ahern filed

two separate suits against its former employees, Scott Helms and William Green,

alleging breach of contract, violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act

and the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, theft of confidential information,

breach of fiduciary duties, and disparagement. The appeal currently before this

court occurs in the suit originally filed against Mr. Green, which was filed on May

8, 2020. Mr. Helms and Mr. Green hired the law firm of Veron Bice Palermo &

Wilson, LLC (Veron firm) to represent them.

Ahern amended the petition in the suit against Mr. Green on January 21,

2021, to include EquipmentShare and its directors and certain officers, and certain

corporate investors in the enterprise. The amended petition also added four former

salesman of Ahern who went to work for EquipmentShare, Chadd Turnage, Lee

Lobbs, Todd Cutchins, and Joshua Harwell. Messrs. Turnage, Lobbs, and

Cutchins also hired the Veron firm to represent them.

EquipmentShare terminated Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage in March 2021.

Out of work, Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage applied for jobs with Ahern. Mr. Helms

and Mr. Turnage went to Las Vegas to interview with Ahern management and

corporate counsel. Before the interviews, Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage talked with

their attorney at the Veron firm. Counsel for Ahern contacted the Veron firm to

determine if there were any instructions given to Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage.

Michael Veron stated that he expected Ahern not to discuss the litigation outside

the presence of the attorneys representing Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage.

Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage accepted jobs with Ahern while still in Las

Vegas. Mr. Turnage sent notice to the Veron firm terminating the Veron firm as

their counsel on March 19, 2021:

Myself and Scott Helms are still in Las Vegas attempting to discuss
the employment process between both Scott and Myself and Ahern.
That being said, I am advising that I intend on speaking with Ahern’s
attorney about the lawsuit which is not being used as leverage against
me nor Scott in the employee hiring process. I am aware that as of
today I am speaking with Ahern’s attorney without legal
representation and am advising that I am no longer in need of Veron,
Bice, Palermo and Wilson representation.

In an affidavit, Mr. Helms acknowledged that he authorized Mr. Turnage to

discharge the Veron firm on his (Mr. Helm’s) behalf. The Veron firm withdrew as

counsel for the two men in early April 2021. Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage then

hired James DeRosier to represent their interests in their respective suits.

On June 22, 2021, Mr. DeRosier, on behalf of Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage,

filed a Motion to Disqualify Counsel and for Production of Client File. They

argued that Rule 1.9(a) and (c) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct

required the Veron firm to be removed from the case because the interests of their

remaining clients in this litigation were adverse to the interests of Mr. Helms and

Mr. Turnage. They further argued that the Veron firm withheld parts of their client

file to which they are entitled pursuant to Rule 1.16(d) of the Louisiana Rules of

Professional Conduct. The Veron firm responded with an opposition to the

motions and a Motion for Sanctions and Contempt. In opposition, the Veron Firm

argued that Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage were not adverse parties in the litigation,

and questioned why Ahern had not dismissed their employees, Mr. Helms and Mr.

2

Turnage, from the litigation once they had been rehired by Ahern. Further, the

Veron firm expressed concern that confidential and privileged strategy information

in the client files would be shared by Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage with Ahern, who

could use that information in the continuing suit against the other former Ahern

salesmen who remained employed by EquipmentShare. In support of their motion

for sanctions, the Veron firm argued that the only reason Ahern had failed to

dismiss Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage from the litigation was to pursue this tactic of

obtaining the privileged client files from the Veron firm and disqualifying the

Veron firm so as to force Messrs. Green, Lobbs, and Cutchins to hire new counsel.

The Veron firm sought a finding of contempt and for sanctions against Mr.

DeRosier, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Turnage pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. arts. 371, 863,

and 224 for misuse of process.

The court held a hearing on August 10, 2021. For the purpose of the

Motion to Disqualify Counsel and for Production of Client Files, the court limited

argument to only the attorney for Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage and a representative

of the Veron Firm, Peyton Pawlicki. The trial court denied the Motion to

Disqualify Counsel and the Motion for Production of Client File in a judgment

dated August 12, 2021. Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage filed an application for

supervisory writs in this court, seeking review of that judgment. This court denied

relief, finding “no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling.” Ahern Rentals,

Inc. v. Green, 21-621 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/11/22)(unpublished writ disposition), writ

denied, 22-420 (La. 5/3/22), ___ So.3d ___.

The trial court granted the Veron firm’s Motion for Sanctions and Contempt

and ordered that Mr. DeRosier, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Turnage collectively pay the

Veron firm’s costs and attorney fees in the amount of $7,500.00. In its written

reasons, the trial court stated:
3

The “conflict” between Helms/Turnage and Veron Bice was a
[sic] manufactured after Helms and Turnage were rehired by Ahern
but remained as defendants to Ahern’s civil allegations in this matter.
Through counsel, their focus was on discovering information from
Veron Bice for the benefit of Ahern[.]

....

This ploy is too obvious and too concerning for the Court to
ignore or minimize.

A judgment in conformity with its ruling was signed on September 27, 2021. It is

from this judgment that Mr. DeRosier, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Turnage have filed this

appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The appellants assert two assignments of error:

1. The Trial Court erroneously interpreted and applied Louisiana law
when it sanctioned Scott Helms, Chadd Turnage, and their attorney,
James DeRosier. If allowed to stand, the Trial Court’s ruling would
permit the punishment of Appellants for asserting their right to
prevent the Veron Firm from continuing to represent clients whose
interests are materially adverse to those of its former clients in the
same litigation and to prevent the use of information learned by the
Veron Firm during its representation of Chadd Turnage and Scott
Doyle Helms to their disadvantage.

2. The Trial Court erred further by imposing sanctions against
Appellants in response to their filing a Motion for Production of
Client Files, a motion which was filed in order that Scott Helms and
Chadd Turnage’s property, their own client files, be returned to them
as required by Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(d).

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 863 requires that an attorney shall

sign all pleadings, and further states:

B. Pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit or
certificate, except as otherwise provided by law, but the signature of
an attorney or party shall constitute a certification by him that he has
read the pleading, and that to the best of his knowledge, information,
and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, he certifies all of the
following:

4

(1) The pleading is not being presented for any improper
purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

(2) Each claim, defense, or other legal assertion in the
pleading is warranted by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law.

(3) Each allegation or other factual assertion in the
pleading has evidentiary support or, for a specifically
identified allegation or factual assertion, is likely to have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery.

(4) Each denial in the pleading of a factual assertion is
warranted by the evidence or, for a specifically identified
denial, is reasonably based on a lack of information or
belief.

....

D. If, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, the court
determines that a certification has been made in violation of the
provisions of this Article, the court shall impose upon the person who
made the certification or the represented party, or both, an appropriate
sanction which may include an order to pay to the other party the
amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of
the pleading, including reasonable attorney fees.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 224(4) defines constructive contempt as

“[d]eceit or abuse of the process or procedure of the court by a party to an action or

proceeding, or by his attorney[.]”

“Review of the trial court’s determination as to whether behavior rises to the

level of contempt is subject to a manifest error standard of review.” Caldarera v.

Caldarera, 14-41, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/21/14), 140 So.3d 1224, 1226.

At the hearing, the trial court asked Mr. DeRosier why his clients had not

been dismissed as defendants by Ahern:

THE COURT: Why are your clients still in this lawsuit?

MR. DEROSIER: Well, Judge, they’re protecting their interest at this
point to get their own file and to seek the disqualification of their own
former lawyer who are opposing their interest in this case.
5

THE COURT: That’s their only purpose?

MR. DEROSIER: That’s their remaining purpose, yes. Now they’re
defending themselves as there’s been criminal conduct alleged against
them in Mr. Veron and Mr. Pawlicki’s motions that are defending
themselves. That’s the purpose it serves, to protect their own
interests.

THE COURT: I just don’t understand why Ahern is keeping them
in the suit since they now work for Ahern.

MR. DEROSIER: Understood and that’s my feelings as well.

After hearing arguments and considering the evidence presented, the trial court

found that Ahern was delaying the dismissal of Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage as

defendants to attempt to gain information on EquipmentShare’s strategy by

compelling production of client files from the Veron firm. The trial court called

the tactic “gamesmanship.” The trial court found that Mr. DeRosier, on behalf of

Mr. Helms and Mr. Turnage and in concert with Ahern, filed the motion to

disqualify the Veron firm in an effort to hamper the ability of the remaining

salesmen still employed by EquipmentShare and represented by the Veron firm to

defend against the suit brought by Ahern.

We find the evidence in this case is sufficient to support the trial court’s

ruling, and there was no manifest error in the decision of the trial court. There is

evidence that the motion at issue in this case was filed to cause unnecessary delay

and as an abuse of process. Further, we find that the award of $7,500.00 for court

costs and attorney fees is not an abuse of discretion. See Blanchet v. Boudreaux,

15-60 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/19/15), 175 So.3d 460, 462, writ denied, 15-2156 (La.

1/25/16), 185 So.3d 749.

We note that in its brief, the Veron firm has asked for an increase in the

sanctions awarded for costs associated with this appeal. The Veron firm has

neither appealed the judgment of the trial court nor answered the appeal filed by
6

Messrs. DeRosier, Helms, and Turnage. “An appellee who neither answers the

appeal nor appealed from the trial court’s judgment is not entitled to additional

attorney’s fees for legal services rendered on appeal.” Charles v. LeBlanc, 93-871

(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 633 So.2d 866, 870, writ denied, 94-1314 (La. 9/2/94),

643 So.2d 148 (citing Lysinger v. Security Indus. Ins. Co., 488 So.2d 353 (La.App.

3 Cir.), writ denied, 493 So.2d 638 (La.1986)).

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are assessed to Mr.

DeRosier, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Turnage.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

7