Joseph Harvey Gautreaux v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CM 24-503

JOSEPH HARVEY GAUTREAUX, ET AL.

VERSUS

LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 81835
HONORABLE ANTHONY THIBODEAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHARON DARVILLE WILSON

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Van H. Kyzar, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Wilbur L. Stiles,
Judges.

MOTION TO DISMISS UNLODGED APPEAL DENIED.

Stephen B. Murray, Jr.
Stephen B. Murray, Sr.
Arthur Murray
Murray Law Firm
701 Poydras Street
Suite 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 525-8100
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
siuated

Kenneth W. DeJean
Law Office of Kenneth W. DeJean
Post Office Box 4325
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 235-5294
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
siuated

Kenneth D. St. Pe
Kenneth D. St. Pe, APLC
311 W. University Avenue
Suite A
Lafayette, LA 70506
(337) 534-4043
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
siuated

John Randall Whaley
Benjamin H. Dampf
Whaley Law Firm
6700 Jefferson Highway
Building 12, Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70806
(225) 302-8810
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
siuated

Wayne J. Lee
Heather S. Lonian
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street
Suite 3150
New Orleans, LA 70112
(504) 581-3200
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance

James K. Ordeneaux
Matthew T. Habig
Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson LLP
701 Poydras Street
Suite 3800
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 582-1142
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance

Charles C. Garrison
Caffery, Oubre, Campbell, & Garrison, LLP
Post Office Drawer 12410
New Iberia, LA 70562
(337) 364-1816
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance

WILSON, Judge.

Plaintiffs-Appellees in this class action matter, Joseph Harvey Gautreaux, et al,

filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the unlodged appeal taken by the defendant-

appellant, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company. For the reasons

below, we deny the motion.

On September 14, 2014, Plaintiff Joseph Gautreaux filed suit, individually and

on behalf of others similarly situated, alleging that the actual cash value of insureds’

total vehicle losses was undervalued by the Mitchell Work Centers Total Loss

computer system used by Defendant. Plaintiffs accuse Defendant of violating

Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1982(B)(5) and Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1973 (as

was in effect at the time when the lawsuit was filed) by engaging in a system of

misleading its insureds, intentionally undervaluing their claims, and refusing to

negotiate claims in good faith. On March 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class

certification, and a class certification hearing was held in April 2018. On August 23,

2018, the trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of

statutory compliance, specifically seeking judgment that Defendant’s WCTL system

violates the requirements of Louisiana Revised Statutes 22:1892(B)(5). That motion

for summary judgment was granted by the trial court on November 15, 2021, along

with multiple motions for partial summary judgment on behalf of Defendant. That

ruling was affirmed by this court. Gautreaux v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.,

22-294 (La. App.3 Cir. 12/29/22), 362 So 3d 896, writ denied, 23-399 (La. 5/16/23),

360 So.3d 837.

Then, on March 4, 2024, Defendant filed a motion seeking decertification of the

class. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for class decertification, and

Defendant sought review of that ruling, both by the current appeal and via an

application for supervisory writs. Prior to this court ruling on Defendant’s application

for supervisory writs, Plaintiffs filed the current motion seeking the dismissal of the

still unlodged appeal taken by the Defendant.

However, on September 24, 2024, this court ruled on the Defendant’s pending

writ application, stating:

WRIT GRANTED. This court grants the instant writ application for the
limited purpose of ordering the consolidation of this writ application with
the appeal which has not yet been lodged with this court for review of the
trial court’s judgment denying Relator’s motion to decertify class.
Briefing and oral argument will be set according to the rules regarding
appeals upon the lodging of the appeal. In the event that the appeal is
voluntarily dismissed prior to its lodging with this court, Relator is
hereby commanded to notify this court of this fact within ten days of the
dismissal.

“It is well established law that appeals are favored by Louisiana courts, . . . and

unless the grounds urged for a dismissal are free from doubt, an appeal will be

sustained.” Brock v. Tidewater Constr. Co., 318 So.2d 100, 102 (La.App. 3 Cir.1975)

(citing Emmons v. Agric. Ins. Co., 158 So.2d 594 (La.1963). This court has further

held a judgment denying a motion to decertify class is an appealable judgment under

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 592(A)(3)(b). Sutton Steel & Supply, Inc. v.

BellSouth Mobility, Inc., 07-146 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/07), 971 So.2d 1257, writ

denied, 08-94 (La. 3/14/08), 977 So.2d 931. Addressing class certification rulings

specifically, this court in West v. G & H Seed Co., 01–1453, p.8 (La.App. 3 Cir.

8/28/02), 832 So.2d 274, 281 (citations omitted) stated: “[c]ertification of a class of

plaintiffs is an interlocutory ruling, may create irreparable harm to defendants, and

thus justifies appellate review. Because any potential error in this judgment . . .

cannot practically be corrected on appeal after trial on the merits, the defendants are

allowed to appeal such certification.” Following the aforementioned jurisprudence of

2

this court, we hereby deny Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the unlodged appeal, at

Plaintiffs’ cost.

MOTION TO DISMISS UNLODGED APPEAL DENIED.

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

3