Opinion
21-C-641
11-29-2021
DARRYL WILSON v. LOUISIANA-I GAMING, A LOUISIANA PARTNERSHIP IN COMMENDAM IN RE LOUISIANA-I GAMING, A LOUISIANA PARTNERSHIP IN COMMENDAM
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT, DIVISION "M", NUMBER 794-763
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Hans J. Liljeberg
MOTIONS GRANTED; WRIT DENIED
Relator/defendant, Louisiana-I Gaming, A Louisiana Partnership In Commendam, seeks review of the trial court's judgment denying its motion for summary judgment.
Relator also moved this court to deem its writ application timely filed and to supplement writ application. Having reviewed the exhibits, we grant these motions.
A trial court cannot make credibility determinations, evaluate testimony, or weigh conflicting evidence in making its decision as to whether to grant or deny a motion for summary judgment. Bryde v. Lakeview Regional Medical Center, LLC, 19-166 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/11/19), 284 So.3d 686, 695; Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512 (La. 07/05/94), 639 So.2d 730, 751. Upon de novo review, we find genuine issues of material fact exist and relator is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Relator challenges in part the trial court's "reasons for judgment," to show that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. A trial court's oral or written reasons for judgment form no part of the judgment; thus appellate courts review judgments, not reasons for judgment. Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 07-1335 (La. 04/18/08), 980 So.2d 654, 671; Wooley v. Lucksinger, 09-571 (La. 04/01/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572. Therefore, our review of this matter is de novo, based on only properly admissible summary judgment evidence.
Accordingly, this writ application is denied.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 29th day of November, 2021.
SJW
MEJ
HJL