Great Lakes Insurance Se v. Red Lion Hotels Corporation

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 22-256 consolidated with CA 22-257

ALI KAZAN, ET AL.

VERSUS

RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, ET AL.

consolidated with

GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE

VERSUS

RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 263,393 C/W 264,346
HONORABLE PATRICIA EVANS KOCH, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY H. EZELL

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy H. Ezell, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

APPEALS BY VITTHAL, LLC DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Sidney Wallis Degan, III
James Albert Rowell
Travis Louis Bourgeois
Jena W. Smith
Degan, Blanchard & Nash
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2600
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 529-3333
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Great Lakes Insurance SE

Kevin R Derham
Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Pfister, Weinstock & Bogart
3838 North Causeway Boulevard, #2900
Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 832-3700
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Great Lakes Insurance SE

Brian W. Harrell
Attorney at Law
5555 Hilton Avenue, # 620
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
(225) 610-1110
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Great Lakes Insurance SE

Charles Eustace Leche
Kari M. Rosamond
Deutsch Kerrigan LLP
755 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 593-0790
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ketan Patel
Vitthal, LLC

Bryce Jefferson Denny
Attorney At Law
209 Polk Street
Mansfield, LA 71052
(318) 871-5007
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ketan Patel
Vitthal, LLC

Henry Minor Pipes
Catherine Fornias Giarrusso
Pipes, Miles, Beckman
Kelsey L. Meeks
1100 Poydras Street, #1800
New Orleans, LA 70112
(504) 322-7070
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Liberty Insurance Company
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

W. Jay Luneau
Luneau Law Firm
5208 Jackson Street Extension, Suite A
Alexandria, LA 71315
(318) 445-6581
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Ali Kazan individually and on behalf of deceased child Lia Kazan
Ebony Medlin indivdually and on behalf of deceased child Lia Kazan

Scott J. Chafin, Jr.
Brett P. Fenasci
Gregorio, Chafin, Johnson
9284 Linwood Avenue
Shreveport, LA 71106
(318) 865-8680
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEE:
Ali Kazan individually and on behalf of deceased child Lia Kazan
Ebony Medlin indivdually and on behalf of deceased child Lia Kazan

Christian Brownell Bogart
Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Pfister, Weinstock & Bogart
3838 North Causeway Boulevard, #2900
Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 832-3700
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc.
Red Lion Hotels Corporation

EZELL, Judge.

On April 25, 2022, this court ordered Appellant, Vitthal, LLC (Vitthal), to show

cause by brief only, why the appeals should not be dismissed as having been taken

from a non-appealable, interlocutory order. For the reasons stated herein, we dismiss

the appeals.

The instant case involves a wrongful death and survival action which Plaintiffs-

Appellees, Ali Kazan and Ebony Medlin, have filed individually and on behalf of

their now-deceased daughter, Lia Kazan, who was abducted/kidnapped from the

America’s Best Value Inn and ultimately killed. Plaintiffs have sued various

defendants, including Vitthal, which owns and operates the America’s Best Value Inn,

and Great Lakes Insurance SE, Vitthal’s liability insurer. The motel’s franchisors,

Red Lion Hotels Corporation and Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc., and their

insurers, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Insurance Corporation,

were also named as party defendants; however, they have settled with Plaintiffs.

Vitthal filed a motion in limine, seeking to have the trial court require the jury

to assess and compare the fault of Anthony Murray, the deceased kidnapper, who is

not a party to the lawsuit. A hearing on the motion was held on November 5, 2021,

and the trial court denied Vitthal’s motion in a written judgment on November 8, 2021.

Then, on November 30, 2021, the trial court signed an “Order and Judgment

Regarding Proceedings on November 5, 2021”, wherein the court confirmed its bench

rulings from November 5, 2021, denying Vitthal’s motion in limine concerning the

comparative fault of Anthony Murray. Also, pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B),

the trial court designated the ruling as a final judgment appropriate for appeal.

Vitthal sought supervisory review of the trial court’s November 8, 2021

judgment, and this court ruled on February 22, 2022, as follows:

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY. Although
Plaintiffs-Respondents, Ali Kazan and Ebony Medlin, maintain that the
ruling in Veazey, 851 So.2d 943 survives the 1996 amendments to

La.Civ.Code arts. 2323 and 2324, this court has held that the Veazey case
has been superseded by the 1996 amendments. See Turner v. Shop Rite,
Inc., 14-315 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/1/14), 149 So.3d 427, writ denied, 14-
2302 (La. 1/23/15), 159 So.3d 1058. Because La.Civ.Code art. 2323, as
amended, expressly provides that “[i]n any action for damages where a
person suffers injury, death, or loss, the degree or percentage of fault of
all persons causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss shall be
determined . . . ”, we find that the trial court erred when it denied the
motion in limine whereby Relator sought to have the jury be allowed to
assess and apportion fault to the intentional tortfeasor in the instant case.
Therefore, we hereby reverse the trial court and render judgment granting
Relator’s motion in limine.

Kazan v. Red Lion Hotels Corp., an unpublished opinion bearing docket number 21-

751 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/22/22).

While the matter was pending before this court on supervisory writ, Vitthal

sought appeals of the November 30, 2021 ruling. Upon the lodging of the appeals in

this court, on April 25, 2022, we issued a rule to show cause why the appeals should

not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling.

In Vitthal’s response to the rule, it explains that it has pursued the instant

appeals only as a precautionary exercise in the event a writ, appeal, or other adverse

action regarding this court’s February 22, 2022 ruling might be taken by Plaintiffs.

Vitthal concludes that since the issue in the instant appeals has been decided by this

court, it suggests that these appeals may be appropriate for summary disposition under

Rule 2-11.3 of the Uniform Rules⸺Courts of Appeal.

We find that the discussion of whether the appeals should be dismissed as

having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling is pretermitted as the

issue on appeal is now moot. This court has ruled on the identical issue set forth in

the trial court’s November 8, 2021 judgment, and thus, all issues in the present

appeals have already been decided. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the appeals as

moot.

APPEALS BY VITTHAL, LLC DISMISSED AS MOOT.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

2