$1.3 million dispute between Capital One, liquor company continues

By Mary Ann Magnell | Oct 22, 2018

GRETNA — A Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently dismissed an appeal because it “lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal,” and remanded a case to the trial court for further proceedings, additionally denying the motion by defendant Capital One N.A., et al, to strike plaintiffs' brief and its motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. 

The decision for Romano Wholesale Liquor Co. Inc. was filed on Oct. 5 by Judge Hans Liljeberg. 

“The judgment at issue in this appeal does not meet the criteria to be considered final under La. C.C.P. art 1915(A)(1),” wrote Liljeberg. “In this case, because the judgment granting Capital One’s exception of prescription and dismissing plaintiffs’ claims in the main demand did not address the claims of the reconventional demand and was never designated as final by the trial court after an express determination that there is no just reason for delay pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B). We find the judgment is not a final, appealable judgment and, thus, we lack appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal. 

“Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.”

The case was on appeal from the 24th Judicial District Court, Division N and involved a 2009 alleged “mismanagement or conversion of over $1.3 million allegedly deposited into Romano Wholesale’s corporate account at Hibernia National Bank, now Capital One,” of which Capital One filed exceptions of prescription, no cause of action, and no right of action. 

The trial court granted the exception of prescription and dismissed plaintiff Katherine De Jean Richardson, Patrick Jude De Jean and Romano Wholesale Liquor Co. Inc.’s claims in a judgement in 2010. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeals. 

The ongoing suit has since been in and out of court since 2010 on appeals and remands. In 2014 after a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff was found, a rehearing was conducted because of the newly discovered evidence. 

However, a certified forensic document examiner concluded the letter “was not genuine, but rather was a ‘contrived document.” The defendant then filed claims of fraud, abuse of process and conspiracy. 

The State of Louisiana Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Case No. is 18-CA-240.

Want to get notified whenever we write about Capital One ?

Sign-up Next time we write about Capital One, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Capital One

More News

The Record Network