Schexnayder v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc.
Decision Date | 29 March 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 04-CA-636.,04-CA-636. |
Citation | 899 So.2d 107 |
Parties | Arthur SCHEXNAYDER, Jr., Alice Labat, Estate of Theodore Dreyfus, Inc. v. ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC., Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Technology Holding Company and Entergy Technology Company. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Victor L. Marcello, Donald T. Carmouche, Talbot, Carmouche, & Marcello, Gonzales, LA, Brian A. Eddington, Baton Rouge, LA, Michael R. Mangham, Stacy N. Kennedy, Donald J. Ethridge, Mangham & Associates, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
Ewell E. Eagan, Jr., Martin E. Landrieu, Wendy Hickok Robinson, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, Marcus V. Brown, Entergy Legal Services, New Orleans, LA, Vincent J. Sotile, Jr., Sotile Law Firm, Prairieville, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
Panel composed of Judges MARION F. EDWARDS, SUSAN M. CHEHARDY and CLARENCE E. McMANUS.
The defendants, Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Technology Holding Company and Entergy Technology Company1, appeal from the trial court's decision granting the Motion For Class Certification filed by plaintiffs, Arthur Schexnayder, Jr., Alice Labat, and the Estate of Theodore Dreyfus, Inc., and appointing them as representatives of the class. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court. Entergy provides domestic retail electric utility service in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In the 1990's, Entergy began installing a fiber optic cable network through several states, including Louisiana, within previously acquired servitudes, to meet its communication needs over the next several decades. Plaintiffs allege that defendant marketed its surplus to various communications entities.
On April 4, 2003, the plaintiffs, all Louisiana residents, filed suit against the defendants alleging that defendants committed a knowing and intentionally bad faith civil trespass by unlawfully physically invading their lands and those of the class members without their knowledge and permission, and failed to compensate them for the unauthorized and unlawful use of their land. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants concealed the existence of the fiber optic cable and its uses other than the transmission of electricity and/or internal communications, which includes leasing, selling, and otherwise allowing third parties to use excess fiber optic capacity on the network. The plaintiff sought damages for the physical damage to the property involved, lost profits, loss of revenue and use of the property, and all other damages to which they were entitled under Louisiana law.
Thereafter, on May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, alleging that all five prerequisites for certification under LSA-C.C.P. art. 591(A) were satisfied, and that they were entitled to certification pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 591(B)(1)(2) and (3). Plaintiffs proposed three class representatives: Arthur Schexnayder, Jr., a resident of St. James Parish; his sister, Alice Labat, a resident of Ascension Parish2; and the Estate of Theodore Dreyfus, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation with its principal place of business in Pointe Coupee Parish3.
The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion and appointed Arthur Schexnayder, Jr., Alice Labat, and the Estate of Theodore Dreyfus, Inc., as the class representatives. The court certified the following class under LSA-C.C.P. art. 591(B)(1)(2) and (3):
All persons and entities who own, or have owned, land in Louisiana upon which defendants have strung or installed fiber optic cable that defendants have leased, sold, or provided to other persons or entities, or otherwise used (or that the defendants may lease, sell, provide to other persons or entities, or otherwise use in the future) for purposes other than the transmission of electricity and/or defendants' internal communications. Excluded from this Class are the defendants (and their officers, directors, and employees), and any entity in which the defendants (and their officers, directors, and employees) have a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class are all agencies and subdivisions of the United States and any State, Parish, or local government or municipality or political subdivision thereof ...
The trial court found that the plaintiffs had satisfied each of the five prerequisites for certification under LSA-C.C.P. art. 591(A), that certification was appropriate pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 591(B)(1) and (2), and that the case met the requirements of superiority and predominance under LSA-C.C.P. art. 591(B)(3).
Entergy appeals from the decision of the trial court.
LSA-C.C.P. art. 591 governs class action certification, as follows:
In Daniels v. Witco, 03-1478 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/1/04), 877 So.2d 1011, this Court outlined the requirements for class certification and explained the purpose and intent of a class action procedure:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sutton Steel & Supply v. Bellsouth Mobility
...of action or have substantive merit, or whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail on the merits. Schexnayder v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc., 04-636 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 899 So.2d 107, 113, writ denied, 05-1255 (La.12/9/05), 916 So.2d 1058. Rather, our task is to examine plaintiffs' legal ......
-
Brantley v. City of Gretna
...members must individually prove their right to recover does not preclude class certification. Schexnayder v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc. , 04-636 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 899 So.2d 107, 118, writ denied , 05-1255 (La. 12/9/05), 916 So.2d 1058 ; Daniels v. Witco Corp. , 03-1478 (La. App. 5 Cir......
-
Howard v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center
...a question of fact applying to all four subclasses to be determined on the merits of the case, citing Schexneider v. Energy Louisiana, Inc., 04-636 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/29/05), 899 So.2d 107, writ denied 2005-1255 (La.12/9/05), 916 So.2d 1058, for the point of law that review of a trial court......
-
Melton v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...(S.C. Ct. Com. Pl. 2009); Seven Hills, Inc. v. Bentley, 848 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2003); Schexnayder v. Entergy La., Inc., 899 So. 2d 107 (La. 5th App. Cir. 2005). While these cases do offer similar facts, a brief examination of this authority counsels against class certificat......