Kermit (Tre') Roux III: Representative Works

Race Discrimination

Joanne Rinardo and Tre' Roux represented an insurance company whose insured was a daiquiris shop being sued for $4 million. Thirteen plaintiffs filed a constitutional claim that they had been discriminated against in violation of federal and state public accommodations laws, and also alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that they had been ejected from the shop because of their race and not, as the daiquiri shop claimed, because of their failure to comply with posted policy. Rinardo and Roux filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing the claim was filed prematurely, as it had not yet gone to the appropriate state agency. At a settlement conference on June 3, 2008, with both a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment pending, the plaintiffs significantly reduced their demand, but the daiquiri shop refused to counter the offer. The court accepted DK&S’ novel argument of prematurity, and Judge Duval granted the Motion for Summary Judgment on those grounds.
Bell et al. v. Daiquiris and Cream, No. 8, E.D. La. 2008.

Exception of Prescription

The Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana granted Mr. Roux’s exception of no prescription in a suit on three promissory notes totaling more than $200,000.00. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Trial Court’s judgment granting the exception after it determined that he lender failed to offer and introduce any of the promissory notes into evidence at the hearing on the exceptions.
Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company v. Eckert, 95-156 (La. App. 5th Cir. 5/30/05), 656 So.2d 1081):

Slip and Fall

In this case handled by Mr. Roux, the plaintiff brought an action against Kenny’s Key West after he allegedly slipped and fell while at the bar. The Trial Court entered a judgment in favor of the defendants at the close of the trial. In affirming the Trial Court’s judgment, the Fifth Circuit clarified LSA-R.S. 9:2800.6 and found that a bar is a merchant under Louisiana’s slip and fall statute. It further held that the plaintiff did not prove that the bar had constructive notice of the spill when he only showed that his pants were damp after the fall. The plaintiff also failed to prove that the bar had actual notice of the condition because the bar had employees stationed throughout the bar to check for dangerous conditions. The bar presented positive proof that there were no reports of any puddles or spills on the evening of the alleged accident.
Ballas v. Kenny’s Key West, Inc., 02-684 (La. App. 5th Cir. 12/11/2002), 836 So.2d 289

Timely Request of Service

The plaintiff in this case filed a petition for damages after he allegedly slipped and fell on the stairs in a building owned, operated and managed by an individual and an estate. The plaintiff’s service instructions requested service on the estate but not the individual. When the individual was ultimately served years later, Mr. Roux filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the plaintiff failed to timely request service under LSA-C.C.P. art. 1201. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion. The Fourth Circuit denied the defendants’ subsequent writ application. The Supreme Court, however, granted the defendants’ writ application and dismissed the plaintiff’s petition finding that he did not show good cause for the delay in requesting service. This was the first case the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed which interpreted the provisions of LSA-C.C.P. art. 1201.
Norbert v. Loucks, 2001-1229 (La. 6/29/2001), 791 So.2d 1283

Arbitration

Mr. Roux assisted in the representation of Ad-Med, Inc. in a week long arbitration involving a corporate dispute over the operation of a New Orleans based medical clinic. At the conclusion of the arbitration, the three arbitrators awarded Mr. Roux’s client more than $850,000.00. Eventually, Ad-Med, Inc. moved for confirmation of the arbitration award. The Civil District Court confirmed the award over the defendant’s objection. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Trial Court’s judgment holding that the award was not rendered invalid by the fact that the arbitrator selected by the plaintiff had an undisclosed, ongoing attorney-client relationship with the president and sole shareholder of the plaintiff. The Court concluded that arbitrators selected by parties are not neutral arbitrators and are, therefore, not subject to the American Arbitration Association’s disclosure and bias laws.
Ad-Med, Inc. v. Bruce J. Iteld, M.D. (APMC), 1998-1414 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2/3/99), 728 So.2d 556

Other Reported Decisions

Norbert v. Loucks, 791 So.2d 1283 (La. 2001); Harper vs. Harper, 777 So.2d 1275 (La. App. 5th Cir.2001); National Information Services, Inc. vs. Gottsegen, 737 So.2d 909 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1999); H&H Investment Group, Inc. vs. Brown, 732 So.2d 555 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1999); Ad-Med, Inc. vs. Bruce J. Iteld (APMC), 728 So.2d 556 (La. App. 5th Cir 1998); Gottsegen vs. National Information Services, Inc., 707 So.2d 85 (La. Appp. 5th Cir. 1998); Whitney National Bank vs. Cambridge Relty Corp.; 690 So.2d 213 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1997); Johnson vs. McAlpine, 688 So. 2d 203 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1997); Gottsegen vs. National Information Services, Inc., 688 So.2d 55 (La. Appp. 5th Cir. 1997); Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Co. vs. Eckert, 656 So.2d 1081 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1995); Rosenbloom vs. Bauchat, 654 So.2d 873 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995); Rosenbloom vs. Rosenbloom, 654 So.2d 877 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995); Kambur vs. Kambur, 652 So.2d 99 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1995); and Huntleigh Corp. vs. Louisiana State Bd. of Private Sec. Examiners, 906F. Supp. 357(M.D. La. 1995).