Calix v. Ideal Mkt.

• Docket Number: 25-C-228
• Decision Date: 06 June 2025
• Citation: Calix v. Ideal Mkt., 25-C-228 (La. App. Jun 06, 2025)
• Parties: NIXON R. CALIX v. IDEAL MARKET #6, ET AL. IN RE HAMDALLAH HASAN "MARIO" KAKI AND MUWAFAK "MIKE" KAKI IN RE HAMDALLAH HASAN “MARIO” KAKI AND MUWAFAK “MIKE” KAKI
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

1

NIXON R. CALIX v. IDEAL MARKET #6, ET AL.IN RE HAMDALLAH HASAN "MARIO" KAKI AND MUWAFAK "MIKE" KAKI

IN RE HAMDALLAH HASAN “MARIO” KAKI AND MUWAFAK “MIKE” KAKI

No. 25-C-228

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit

June 6, 2025

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE ELLEN SHIRER KOVACH, DIVISION "K", NUMBER 750-092

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, John J. Molaison, Jr., and Timothy S. Marcel.

WRIT DENIED

The relators, Hamdallah "Mario" Kaki and Muwafak "Mike" Kaki, seek our review of the May 8, 2025 judgment denying their motion in limine to exclude evidence.We deny this writ application for the following reasons.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiff/respondent, Nixon Calix, filed a petition for damages against the relators and others stating that in April of 2015, he worked in the meat department at Ideal Supermarket, which is owned by the relators.He alleged that on April 29, 2015, another employee took him to a building owned by Ideal Supermarket, where others associated with Ideal Supermarket were present who accused him of stealing meat.He alleged that while being held at this location for four hours, he was "severely beaten, punched, kicked, abused, and terrorized."According to the writ application, the respondent intends to introduce evidence of a May 18, 2023 incident involving Moises Marin-Hernandez, an Ideal Supennarket employee accused of stealing meat.The respondent states that Marin-Hernandez was "removed from his workplace during business hours, transported to another location owned or controlled by the defendants, and subjected to a prolonged, coercive confrontation involving threats and physical violence conduct reminiscent of what" Mr. Calix endured.

The relators filed a motion in limine to exclude the evidence involving Marin-Hernandez, claiming this evidence is irrelevant and highly prejudicial.After a hearing the trial judge denied the motion; the relators filed this timely writ application.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The relators state that they first became aware that the respondent sought to introduce evidence of the incident involving Marin-Hernandez when Marin-Hernandez and Gassin "Jimmy" Kaki were listed on the respondent's witness list.The relators explain that Gassin "Jimmy" Kaki, an Ideal Supermarket employee, is a defendant in the criminal proceeding in Orleans Parish in which Marin-Hernandez was the victim.The relators do not identify the specific evidence sought to be excluded however, the attachments to the writ application state that the respondent intends to call Marin-Hernandez and Gassin "Jimmy" Kaki as witnesses and to introduce a certified copy of the bill of information and the civil petition for damages associated with the Marin-Hernandez incident.

Relevant evidence is "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."La.C.E. art. 401.All relevant evidence is admissible, unless the state or federal constitution, the Louisiana Code of Evidence, or other legislation prohibits its use.La.C.E. art. 402.In general, "evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith."La.C.E. art. 404(B).However, such evidence may "be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident[.]"Id.

A trial court...