Cajun Ac and Heating, LLC v. Mirus Lake Charles LLC

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-128

CAJUN AC AND HEATING, LLC

VERSUS

MIRUS LAKE CHARLES, LLC

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2023-1964
HONORABLE CLAYTON DAVIS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CANDYCE G. PERRET

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Jonathan W. Perry and Ledricka J. Thierry,
Judges.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD DENIED.
MOTION TO SUSPEND BRIEFING DENIED.

Richard J. Tyler
Graham H. Ryan
Jones Walker LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170
(504) 582-8370
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Mirus Lake Charles, LLC

Cody J. Vidrine
Billy E. Loftin, Jr.
Loftin Law Group, LLC
113 Dr. Michael DeBakey Drive
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 310-4300
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Cajun AC and Heating, LLC

PERRET, Judge.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cajun AC and Heating, LLC, filed a

Motion to Supplement Record and a Motion to Suspend Briefing. Defendant-

Appellant, Mirus Lake Charles, LLC, has responded with an opposition to both

motions. For the reasons set forth herein, we deny the motions.

In this matter, on September 29, 2023, the trial court granted a Partial

Default Judgment in favor of Appellee, finding Appellant liable to Appellee for

$171,849.00, $4,000.00 in attorney’s fees, plus legal interest from the date of

judicial demand, and all costs of these proceedings. Appellant filed a Motion for

Appeal on November 29, 2023, seeking a devolutive appeal. The motion was

granted, and the appeal was lodged in this court on March 14, 2024.

In Appellee’s Motion to Supplement Record, it asserts that the record

prepared failed to include Appellee’s memorandum in opposition to Appellant’s

motion for appeal filed in the lower court on January 18, 2024, and the exhibits

attached thereto. Appellee’s Motion to Suspend Briefing was filed

contemporaneously with the motion to supplement, seeking to suspend briefing

until fifteen days after the record has been supplemented.

Appellant filed an opposition to Appellee’s motion to supplement the record

and motion to suspend briefing, stating that three days before Appellee’s briefing

deadline, it filed these motions. Appellant asserts that Uniform Rules, Courts of

Appeal, Rule 2-1.11, allows a party to move to supplement the record “upon

showing that the items are material to a decision in the case.” Appellant adds that

this rule prevents parties from using a motion to supplement as a dilatory tactic.

Appellant contends that Appellee’s motion provides no argument whatsoever in

support of the motion.

Appellant, on the other hand, argues that the documents which Appellee’s

motion to supplement seeks to include, conflates a suspensive appeal with a

devolutive appeal, citing the requirements to perfect a suspensive appeal when

Appellant sought a devolutive appeal. Appellant maintains that the proposed

supplement is not material to a decision in this case and that Appellee has failed to

make the requisite showing that “the items are material to a decision in the case.”

Lastly, Appellant contends that on April 26, 2024, after learning its motion to

supplement the record and to suspend briefing were opposed, Appellee filed a

motion for an extension of time in which to file its brief, requesting an additional

fourteen days. Appellant states that it was not consulted about this filing but would

have gladly consented to an additional fourteen days in lieu of an “immaterial

supplementation” and “unwarranted suspension” of briefing. Appellant notes that

the motion for extension does not cite good cause but references only the pending

motion. Appellant, nonetheless, does not object to Appellee’s request for an

additional fourteen days to file its brief.

We find that Appellee’s motion to supplement the record does not comply

with the requirements of Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-1.11, in that it

fails to show that the documents it wishes to include in the record are material to a

decision in the case. Accordingly, we hereby deny Appellee’s motion to

supplement the record and the motion to suspend briefing.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD DENIED. MOTION TO
SUSPEND BRIEFING DENIED.

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

2