Misita v. Maumoulides
| Decision Date | 26 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2022-C-00266 |
| Citation | 336 So.3d 886 (Mem) |
| Parties | Anthony MISITA v. John MAUMOULIDES, Lakelots, Inc., Intrepid, Inc., One Consort International, LLC; Ramsey Development and St. Tammany Parish Anthony Misita and Glenn and Linda Torres v. The St. Tammany Parish Government |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Writ granted. At the heart of this case is a statement former St. Tammany Parish President Kevin Davis allegedly made to Anthony Misita in 2008 or 2009 that, within thirty days, the St. Tammany Parish Government ("STPG") would return to his property to resolve its flooding problems by extending a drainage lateral/canal. The plaintiffs allege that they detrimentally relied on Mr. Davis’ statement.
The main issue presented by this case is whether Mr. Davis (and the STPG, on a theory of vicarious liability) is entitled to a dismissal of the claims asserted against him under the discretionary immunity doctrine. At the outset, we note that the court of appeal erred in finding that Mr. Davis and the STPG did not raise the merits of the discretionary immunity defense in their summary judgment motion.1 Their motion sought summary judgment on several bases, including that the STPG "and its employees are immune from suit for their discretionary decisions under the unambiguous, blackletter law of La. R.S. 9:2798.1, La. R.S. 40:1730(C), La. R.S. 33:101.1, and La. R.S. 33:4771 et seq."
The doctrine of discretionary immunity is set forth in La. R.S. 9:2798.1 B, which provides that "[l]iability shall not be imposed on public entities or their officers or employees based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform their policymaking or discretionary acts when such acts are within the course and scope of their lawful powers and duties." We explained the application of the discretionary act doctine in Cormier v. T.H.E. Ins. Co. , 98-2208, pp. 6-7 (La. 9/8/99), 745 So. 2d 1, 6-7 :
... the court must first consider whether the government employee had an element of choice and his course of action was not specifically prescribed by the statute, regulation, or policy. Conduct cannot be discretionary unless it involves an element of judgment or choice. Thus, discretionary immunity will not apply when a specific course of action is prescribed as the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive. On the other hand, when discretion is involved, the court must then determine whether that discretion is the kind shielded by the exception: one grounded in social, economic, or political activity... If it is, then the doctrine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Key Operating & Prod. Co L LC v. White Capital Grp.
...denied (Nov. 29, 2021), reh'g denied (Jan. 11, 2022), writ granted, judgment aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Masita v. Maumoulides, 336 So.3d 886 (La. 4/26/22), reh'g denied, 346 So.3d 290 (La. 9/20/22). See also Jon C. Adcock, Detrimental Reliance, 45 LA. L. REV. 753, 769 (1985) (sta......
-
Misita v. Caime
...So.3d 11, writ granted, judgment aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds sub nom., Misita v. Maumoulides, 2022-00266 (La. 4/26/22), 336 So.3d 886 (per curium). Following Judge Swartz's denial of plaintiffs' requests to file additional amending petitions in the Division C suit, plainti......