Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MIKE SMITH, HUSBAND OF/AND NANCY SMITH, TWILA SIMMONS AND GERARD ORDOYNE v. PIERRE ELLIS, WILBERT ELLIS, SIDDIQUE MUHAMMED, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, AUTOMOBILE CLUB INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE AND JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY
On July 18, 2023 Relator, Muhammed Siddique (hereinafter “Mr. Siddique”), filed an application for supervisory writs seeking review of the trial court's June 16, 2023 ruling denying his motion for summary judgment. Mr. Siddique's writ application failed to contain a signed judgment and a signed notice of intent as required by Rules 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal. This Court subsequently issued an order on July 18, 2023 requiring Mr. Siddique to supplement his writ application with a signed judgment and a signed notice of intent by July 26, 2023. Mr. Siddique failed to timely comply. Thus, the application for supervisory review was denied on July 28, 2023 for failing to comply with Rules 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.
On August 4, 2023, Mr. Siddique filed an application for rehearing of supervisory writs. The application for rehearing included a signed judgment of the trial court's June 16, 2023 ruling. The application for rehearing also included a signed notice of intent. Thus, Mr. Siddique's application for supervisory writs now complies with Rules 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal. Therefore, we hereby grant the application for rehearing of supervisory writs.
Mr. Siddique's application for supervisory writs seeks review of the trial court's June 16, 2023 ruling denying his motion for summary judgment. The underlying issue in the matter sub judice involves a two car accident on February 23, 2018 (hereinafter “the February accident”). Mr. Siddique, an Uber driver, and four guest passengers were involved in a car accident with Wilbert Ellis (hereinafter “Mr. Ellis”).
Mr. Siddique file a motion for summary judgment averring he was not at fault for the February accident as his vehicle was struck when Mr. Ellis failed to yield. After reviewing the pleadings and evidence presented, the trial court determined that genuine issues of material fact exist as to Mr. Siddique's alleged fault in the February accident and denied the motion for summary judgment.
“Appellate courts review the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria applied by the trial court to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate.” Chatelin v. Fluor Daniel Const. Co., 2014-1312, p.3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/10/15), 179 So.3d 791, 793. Our de novo review indicates that genuine issues of material fact exist as to fault. Finding that the trial court did not err, Mr. Siddique's application for supervisory writs is denied.
REHEARING GRANTED; WRIT DENIED
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: NO. 2023-C-0455
Decided: August 22, 2023
Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)