No. 95-CC-1035 Precedential Processed

Davis v. American Home Products Corp.

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed May 19, 1995 · 654 So. 2d 681

Cited by

Interdictions of Milton E. Cotaya, Jr. and Edna B. Cotaya La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
Davita Smith v. Academy, Ltd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Smith v. Academy Sports & Outdoors 208 So. 3d 391 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Denise v. Greene v. Kayla Schexnayder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
John Anthony Guidry v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative,inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Guidry v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc. 164 So. 3d 266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Robert H. Rhyne, Jr. v. Omni Energy Services Corp. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Rhyne v. Omni Energy Services Corp. 155 So. 3d 155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Omni Energy Services Corp. v. Robert H. Rhyne, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
OMNI Energy Services Corp. v. Rhyne 150 So. 3d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

St. Pe v. Neal 534 So. 2d 993
Howard v. Hercules-Gallion Co. 417 So. 2d 508
Marcotte v. Travelers Insurance Co. 236 So. 2d 587
Marcotte v. Travelers Insurance Company 258 La. 989
Burke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 234 So. 2d 432
Voth v. American Home Assurance Co. 219 So. 2d 236

Opinion text

CALOGERO, Chief Justice, concurring in denial of writ. The defendant’s motion was filed under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1561, which provides for consolidation of two or more separate suits involving common issues of law or fact in the same court. This is a procedural device which allows a trial court to deal with similar issues of law or fact in one trial; it does not merge the parties, affect the running of delays, or authorize consolidation of judgments or appeals. St. Pe v. Neal, 534 So.2d 993 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988); Howard v. Hercules-Gallion Co., 417 So.2d 508 (La.App. 3 Cir.1982); Marcotte v. Travelers Ins. Co., 236 So.2d 587 (La.App. 1 Cir.1970), aff’d, 258 La. 989 , 249 So.2d 105 (1971); Burke v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 234 So.2d 432 (La.App. 2 Cir.1970); Voth v. American Home Assur. Co., 219 So.2d 236 (La.App. 4 Cir.1969). Contrast LSA-C.C.P. Arts. 461-465 (“cumulation of actions”). *682 In this case the defendant has merely moved to “consolidate” trial of two lawsuits presenting factually and legally similar, if not identical, issues in different divisions of the same civil district court. The Ely class’s objections are not well-founded because “consolidation,” unlike “cumulation,” of their action will not result in the rendering of a single judgment, thus possibly “diluting” or otherwise prejudicing the Ely class’s claims. Rather, this procedure will only allow the trial court to more efficiently manage the trial of two remarkably similar class action lawsuits. See, however, LSA-C.C.P. Art. 597 (final judgment on the class action “concludes all members of the class”). The court of appeal therefore did not err by ordering that the two actions be consolidated for purposes of trial.