Glotfelty v. Hart
| Decision Date | 27 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | NUMBER 2013 CA 0870 |
| Parties | BRIAN K. GLOTFELTY v. CRAIG HART, TAMMY KARAS, XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY, RYAN RICHARD, AND JACK STRAIN, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF ST. TAMMANY PARISH |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
BRIAN K. GLOTFELTY
v.
CRAIG HART, TAMMY KARAS, XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY,
RYAN RICHARD, AND JACK STRAIN, JR.,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF ST. TAMMANY PARISH
NUMBER 2013 CA 0870
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT
Judgment Rendered: December 27, 2013
Leonard L. Levenson
Christian W. Helmke
Donna R. Barrios
New Orleans, LA
David R. Paddison
Covington, LA
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Brian K. Glotfelty
William E. Wright, Jr.
Charlotte C. Meade
New Orleans, LA
Jessica M.P. Thornhill
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
Craig P, Hart and Tammy L. Karas
Counsel for Defendant
XYZ Insurance Company
Craig P. Hart
Tammy L. Karas
Covington, LA
Counsel for Defendant
Ryan James Richard
Page 2
Charles M. Hughes, Jr.
Ryan G. Davis
Mandeville, LA
Counsel for Defendant
Jack Strain, Jr., in his official capacity
as Sheriff of St, Tammany Parish
Page 3
WHIPPLE, C.J.
This matter is before us on appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the trial court sustaining two defendants' peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's claims against them. For the following reasons, we affirm.
On November 14, 2011, Mr. Brian K. Glotfelty filed the instant suit for damages against Mr. Craig Hart; Ms. Tammy Karas; XYZ Insurance Company, as Mr. Hart's and/or Ms. Karas's professional liability insurer; Mr. Ryan Richard; and Mr. Jack Strain, Jr., in his official capacity as the Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish. In his petition, Mr. Glotfelty alleged that he was a witness in a divorce proceeding between Ryan and Stacey Richard, wherein Mr. Richard alleged that Mr. Glotfelty and Mrs. Richard were involved in an adulterous relationship. Regarding his claim for damages, Mr. Glotfelty essentially alleged that Mr. Richard, along with Mr. Hart and Ms. Karas, as Mr. Richard's attorneys, had improperly requested and obtained an attachment for his arrest, without a hearing and without adequate notice to him or his attorney, based on his alleged failure to appear at a scheduled deposition and that their acts resulted in his improper arrest, causing him damage. Mr. Glotfelty further alleged that Mr. Richard was, or had represented himself to be, a St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office (STPSO) deputy and that Sheriff Strain was vicariously liable for damages caused by the acts of Mr. Richard or any other
Page 4
STPSO employee in connection with Mr. Glotfelty's arrest.1
Mr. Glotfelty's petition set forth the following factual allegations. Beginning in September 2010, Mr. Richard's attorney, Candice L. Jenkins, attempted to schedule Mr. Glotfelty's deposition multiple times. On October 28, 2010, Ms. Jenkins requested the issuance of a subpoena for Mr. Glotfelty to appear at her office on November 9, 2010 to be deposed and further requested that a special process server be appointed, based on her representation that the sheriff had been unable to serve Mr. Glotfelty. The subpoena was served upon Mr. Glotfelty by the special process server on November 2, 2010. However, while the subpoena required Mr. Glotfelty to appear at Ms. Jenkins's office, it had been "defaced and inscribed" with the address for the office of Mr. Hart, who, together with Ms. Karas, had enrolled as counsel for Mr. Richard on November 3, 2010. Notably, Mr. Glotfelty did not allege in his petition that he appeared at either office for his November 9, 2010 deposition.
Mr. Glotfelty further alleged in his petition that on November 16, 2010, Mr. Hart and Ms. Karas filed a Rule for Contempt, seeking to have Mr. Glotfelty held in contempt of court for failing to appear at his deposition and requesting: (1) that he be attached and (2) that he be brought to court for a December 9, 2010 hearing to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. On November 22, 2010, the trial court signed an order directing that an attachment be issued for Mr.
Page 5
Glotfelty's arrest and that he be brought to court on December 9, 2010, for the contempt hearing. However, according to the allegations of Mr. Glotfelty's petition, Mr. Glotfelty was never served with a copy of the Rule for Contempt. Additionally, Mr. Glotfelty averred that while his counsel had contacted Ms. Karas on two occasions prior to November 30, 2010, neither Ms. Karas nor Mr. Hart provided Mr. Glotfelty's counsel with a copy of the Rule for Contempt or advised his counsel that an attachment had been issued for his arrest.
As further set forth in the petition, on December 4, 2010, five days before the scheduled contempt hearing, a STPSO officer arrested and imprisoned Mr. Glotfelty pursuant to the outstanding attachment order. After what he claims was an "unreasonable lengthy period of time," Mr. Glotfelty was released from jail upon posting a $500.00 bond. According to Mr. Glotfelty, on December 9, 2010, the trial court continued the contempt hearing and recalled the attachment order, and, thereafter at the rescheduled contempt hearing, the trial court dismissed the Rule for Contempt.2
With regard to his claims for damages against these defendants, Mr. Glotfelty alleged that Mr. Hart, Ms. Karas and Mr. Richard were under a legal duty to ensure that any and all attachments for arrest requested and enforced by them or on their behalf were legal, proper, appropriate, and in conformity with Louisiana law. He further averred that in having the attachment for his arrest improperly issued, Mr. Hart, Ms. Karas and Mr. Richard intentionally or, alternatively, with gross negligence, violated Louisiana law and procedure, causing him to suffer damages.
In May 2012, Mr. Hart and Ms. Karas responded to Mr. Glotfelty's petition with a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, seeking
Page 6
dismissal of Mr. Glotfelty's claims against them. After a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment, sustaining the exception, but also granting Mr. Glotfelty leave to file an amended petition to properly state a cause of action against Mr. Hart and Ms. Karas.3
Mr. Glotfelty then filed an amended petition, setting forth additional allegations against Mr. Hart and Ms. Karas. Specifically, in his amended petition, he alleged that their acts constituted a "bad faith abuse of process" on the following grounds: intentionally ""defacing" the subpoena noticing his November 9, 2010 deposition; improperly requesting an ex parte attachment for his arrest and presentment to the court without a hearing or other due process as required by Louisiana law; failing to disclose the existence of the attachment order to his counsel and to the trial court during the December 2, 2010 telephone conference and failing to have the attachment order recalled; and acting in conjunction with Mr. Richard and the STPSO to have him "prematurely" arrested on the attachment. Additionally, Mr. Glotfelty sought a declaratory judgment that LSA-C.C.P. art. 1357, the provision that authorizes the attachment of a witness, is unconstitutional insofar as it "allows for the arrest and seizure of a non-party witness, prior to any hearing, and prior to the non-party witness being properly adjudicated in contempt of [c]ourt ... ."
In response to Mr. Glotfelty's amended petition, Mr. Hart and Ms. Karas again filed another peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, seeking dismissal of Mr. Glotfelty's claims against them. The parties ultimately submitted the matter to the trial court on briefs. On January 2, 2013, the trial court signed a judgment, granting Mr. Hart and Ms. Karas's second exception
Page 7
of no cause of action and dismissing with prejudice Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial