Crescent City Prop. Redevelopment Ass'n, LLC v. Hardy

• Decision Date: 23 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. 2011–CA–1292.,2011–CA–1292.
• Citation: 89 So.3d 1270
• Parties: CRESCENT CITY PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC, William W. Alden, M.D., and Ashley S. Alden v. Ford T. HARDY, Jr. and XYZ Insurance Company.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

89 So.3d 1270

CRESCENT CITY PROPERTY REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, LLC, William W. Alden, M.D., and Ashley S. Alden
v.
Ford T. HARDY, Jr. and XYZ Insurance Company.

No. 2011–CA–1292.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana,
Fourth Circuit.

April 18, 2012.
Rehearing Denied May 23, 2012.

[89 So.3d 1271]

Jack H. Tobias, Law Offices of Jack H. Tobias, P.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellants.

E. Phelps Gay, Mary Beth Meyer, Christovich & Kearney, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.

Court composed of Judge JAMES F. McKAY III, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge DANIEL L. DYSART.

TERRI F. LOVE, Judge.

[4 Cir. 1]Dr. and Mrs. Wesley Alden and Crescent City Property Redevelopment Association, LLC, a limited liability company owned by Dr. Alden (collectively, “the Aldens”), filed a legal malpractice suit in the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish against Attorney Ford T. Hardy, Jr., (“Attorney Hardy”), alleging his negligent legal representation caused a federal jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to render judgment in favor of USAA. The jury's judgment was subsequently affirmed by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney Hardy filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that after significant time for discovery had lapsed, no discovery had been conducted by Plaintiffs and that no witness or evidence had been presented to carry Plaintiffs' burden of establishing that he breached any duty owed to them. After finding no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment.

[89 So.3d 1272]

The Aldens subsequently filed a motion for rehearing on one issue regarding Attorney Hardy's motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court.

[4 Cir. 2]After conducting a de novo review of the record in light of the applicable law and arguments, we conclude the trial court did not commit error in granting summary judgment in favor of Attorney Hardy.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellee Hardy was retained by the Aldens for Katrina-related claims against their property insurer, USAA Casualty Insurance Company. Upon the request of the Aldens, Attorney Hardy engaged Attorney Jack M. Alltmont to serve as co-counsel. Mr. Alltmont is an experienced attorney admitted to practice since 1970, and he has been the managing partner of his law firm for twenty (20) years. After a four-day trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the jury rendered judgment in favor of USAA and dismissed the Aldens' case. The judgment was subsequently affirmed by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court notes the record is void of any transcripts or any other documents related to the federal court trial.

On October 7, 2009, the Aldens filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Attorney Hardy, alleging that his negligent representation resulted in the unfavorable judgment and the dismissal of their case. Attorney Hardy filed an exception of vagueness to the petition, which was denied. He later filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the Aldens did not support any of their negligence claims. He also contended the Aldens failed to produce an expert to establish the applicable standard of care and to establish that Attorney Hardy's conduct fell below the applicable standard of care. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. The Aldens filed a motion for a rehearing on one summary judgment issue, which the trial court denied.

[4 Cir. 3]The Aldens now appeal the trial court's granting of Attorney Hardy's motion for summary judgment. They are not, however, appealing the trial court's denial of the rehearing motion.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. The Aldens assert the trial court erred by granting Appellee Hardy's motion for summary judgment, dismissing their case, after finding that they failed to engage a legal malpractice expert on the issue of alleged malpractice committed by Attorney Hardy by engaging a public adjusting expert who allegedly developed a large financial interest in the litigation;

2. The Aldens assert the trial court erred by granting Appellee Hardy's motion for summary judgment, dismissing their case, after finding that they did not engage a legal malpractice expert on the issue of Attorney Hardy's purported failure to object to allegedly inadmissible and unauthenticated photographs used for the impeachment of Dr. Alden.

LAW AND DISCUSSION Standard of Review

In Independent Fire Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99–2181, 99–2257, p. 7 (La.2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226, 230–231, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the standard of review of a summary judgment as follows:

Our review of a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment is de novo.

[89 So.3d 1273]

Schroeder v. Board of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University, 591 So.2d 342 (La.1991). A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” La. C.C.P. art. 966(B). This article was [4 Cir. 4]amended in 1996 to provide that “summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.... The procedure is favored and shall...