AQUIN v. GARCIA ROOFING REPLACEMENT LLC (2026)

Plaintiff, Michael D'Aquin (D'Aquin), appeals the Zachary City Court's May 13, 2025 judgment granting Defendant's, Garcia Roofing Replacement, LLC (Garcia), Exception of Res Judicata and Motion for Sanctions, ordering D'Aquin to pay Garcia $7,500.00 in attorney fees, and denying Garcia's Motion to Strike as moot. Garcia has answered the appeal requesting an increase in the award on the Motion for Sanctions to include costs and increased attorney fees, and additional attorney fees for defending this appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the city court. Garcia's answer to the appeal is denied in part and granted in part. D'Aquin is ordered to pay Garcia an additional $2,500.00 in attorney fees for work performed in connection with this appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 12, 2021, D'Aquin contracted with Garcia for roofing services on his home located in Marrero, Louisiana, for damage sustained during hurricane Ida. The total agreed upon price of the contract was $33,477.38, with $15,000.00 paid by D'Aquin as an upfront deposit. The remainder, $18,477.3 8, was to be paid upon satisfactory completion of the roofing services. D'Aquin became dissatisfied with the work performed and refused to remit the final payment on the contract. D'Aquin secured home inspections from 21st Century Home Inspections, LLC, reports dated May 25, 2022, detailing the condition of the roof at that time. The two lawsuits underlying this appeal on the issue of res judicata are as follows.

Garcia v. D'Aquin 2

On January 3, 2023, Garcia filed suit for nonpayment on the contract in Zachary City Court. D'Aquin was personally served on March 5, 2023, and failed to timely file an Answer. On April 6, 2023, a default judgment was signed in favor of Garcia. On April 17, 2023, D'Aquin filed an Answer. On April 28, 2023, D'Aquin filed a Motion for New Trial which was denied. D'Aquin appealed. This Court affirmed and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs on December 27, 2024. See Garcia Roofing Replacement, LLC v. D'Aquin, 2023-0889 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/3/24), 394 So.3d 306, writ denied, 2024-01210 (La. 12/27/24), 397 So.3d 1215.

D'Aquin v. Garcia 3

On July 18, 2023, during the appeal process of Garcia v. D'Aquin, D'Aquin filed suit against Garcia in Jefferson Parish District Court (24th JDC). The crux of D'Aquin’s claims was defective workmanship and resulting damages and unfair trade practices. On September 6, 2023, because an appeal was pending in the city court case, Garcia filed an Exception of Lis Pendens and an Exception of Improper Venue. The 24th JDC granted the Exception of Improper Venue on October 23, 2023, and ordered the transfer of the case to Zachary City Court. The 24th JDC denied the Exception of Lis Pendens as moot. D'Aquin sought supervisory review, which was denied by the fifth circuit on January 31, 2024, and by the Louisiana Supreme Court on April 23, 2024. See D'Aquin v. Garcia Roofing Replacement, LLC, 23-604 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/31/24), 2024 WL 374584, writ denied, 2024-00269 (La. 4/23/24), 383 So.3d 606 (unpublished).

Current Zachary City Court Case

Thereafter, D'Aquin transferred the matter to Zachary City Court.⁴ Garcia was served with the Zachary City Court suit on February 5, 2025. Garcia filed a request for an extension to answer on February 11, 2025, and was granted a 30-day extension. On March 3, 2025, D'Aquin filed a First Supplemental and Amending Petition summarily alleging that the damages in the suit exceeded the $35,000 jurisdictional limit of the city court.

In response, and after the Louisiana Supreme Court had denied writs in Garcia v. D'Aquin, Garcia filed an Exception of Res Judicata, Motion for Sanctions, and Motion to Strike the First Supplemental and Amending Petition. After a hearing and ruling in open court, the city court judge signed a written judgment on May 13, 2025, granting the peremptory Exception of Res Judicata and the Motion for Sanctions, awarding Garcia $7,500.00 in attorney fees, and finding the Motion to Strike to be moot.

D'Aquin now appeals the May 13, 2025 judgment, asserting that the city court erred in 1) considering and deciding the issue of res judicata before considering D'Aquin’s First Supplemental and Amending Petition, 2) granting the Exception of Res Judicata, and 3) granting Garcia's Motion for Sanctions and awarding $7,500.00 in attorney fees. Garcia has answered the appeal requesting an increase in the award on its Motion for Sanctions to include costs and increased attorney fees, and additional attorney fees for this appeal.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Assignment of Error Number One: First Supplemental and Amending Petition and Motion to Strike

D'Aquin argues that it was error for the city court to consider the substantive issue of res judicata when the subject matter jurisdiction of the city court was placed at issue by his Supplemental and Amending Petition. D'Aquin submits that his filing in the 24th JDC was in good faith and that once the case was transferred to Zachary City Court, a court of limited jurisdiction, he filed the Supplemental and Amending Petition solely asserting that the jurisdictional amount exceeded the city court's $35,000.00 jurisdictional limit. In response, Garcia notes that it filed a Motion to Strike the Supplemental and Amending Petition which, contrary to D'Aquin’s assertions, was heard and considered at the contradictory hearing on April 29, 2025, in compliance with La. C. C. P. art. 964.⁵ Garcia further submits that the Supplemental and Amending Petition was not filed in good faith as required by La. C.C.P. art. 4841(B).⁶

Regarding whether the Supplemental and Amending Petition was properly before the city court, the parties dispute the characterization of the petition as supplemental or amending. At the hearing, D'Aquin initially advised the city court that it was “both.” Later, when pressed on the issue by the judge, D'Aquin changed his response, stating that the petition was not supplemental, but amending in nature filed only to clarify that the claims exceeded the jurisdictional limit and should be accepted as it was filed before any answer. On appeal, D'Aquin maintains that the petition was amending and filed before an answer in compliance with La. C.C.P. article 1151. Garcia submits that, if determined to be supplemental, the petition was not compliant with La. C.C.P. art. 1155, which requires the consent of the defendant or a hearing. Garcia further counters that, as supplemental or amending, the petition was subject to its motion to strike as insufficient and made in bad faith. Specifically, Garcia argues D'Aquin did not challenge the transfer of the 24th JDC suit to Zachary City Court and did not argue the jurisdictional limit to the 24th JDC, fifth circuit, or Louisiana Supreme Court. D'Aquin raised the jurisdictional amount for the first time in Zachary City Court by way of the Supplemental and Amending Petition in an effort to thwart the jurisdiction of the court that entered the default judgment against him.

We find no merit in D'Aquin’s argument. The Supplemental and Amending Petition was thoroughly considered at the contradictory hearing by the city court judge who was exceptionally familiar with the procedural background of this protracted litigation. In his reasons for judgment, the city court judge stated that D'Aquin’s filing of the Supplemental and Amending Petition bordered on “bad faith and gamesmanship.” We agree. Notably, the petition raising the issue of the jurisdictional limit was filed after two years of litigation on the roofing service contract at issue. Regardless of whether the petition is considered supplemental or amending, our review of the transcript of the hearing, the paucity of the Supplemental and Amending Petition, and the procedural circus that D'Aquin created by his efforts to secure a more favorable forum convinces this Court that the city court did not abuse its discretion in first deciding the issue of res judicata and finding the motion to strike the Supplemental and Amending Petition to be moot.⁷ The city court acted within its discretion and in the interest of judicial efficiency and economy.

Accordingly, this assignment of error has no merit.

Assignment of Error Number Two: Res Judicata

Res judicata bars relitigation of a subject matter arising from the same transaction or occurrence of a previous suit. Pierrotti v. Johnson, 2011-1317 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/19/12), 91 So.3d 1056, 1063. It promotes judicial efficiency and final resolution of disputes. Id. Implicit in the concept of res judicata is the principle that a party had the opportunity to raise a claim in the first adjudication, but failed to do so. La. C.C.P. art. 425.⁸ In addition, a defendant is required through a compulsory reconventional demand to assert all causes of action he may have against the plaintiff that arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the basis for the plaintiff's action. La. C.C.P. art. 1061.⁹ Once a final judgment acquires res judicata status, no court has jurisdiction to change the judgment. See Stroscher v. Stroscher, 2001-2769 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03), 845 So.2d 518, 525.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4231 addresses res judicata, and provides:

Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:

(1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment.

(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.

(3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent action between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that judgment.

Thus, under La. R.S. 13:4231, all of the following criteria must be satisfied in order for res judicata to preclude a second action: (1) the first judgment is valid; (2) the first judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation. Burguieres v. Pollingue, 2002-1385 (La. 2/25/03), 843 So.2d 1049, 1053.

The burden of proving the facts essential to sustaining the objection of res judicata is on the party pleading the objection. Pierrotti, 91 So.3d at 1063. The concept should be rejected when doubt exists as to whether a plaintiff's substantive rights actually have been previously addressed and finally resolved. Id. The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Id.

On appeal, D'Aquin presents no argument on the elements of res judicata and the city court's application thereof to the facts of this case. Rather, his argument begins with a restatement of his previously rejected assertion that the city court erred in ruling on the exception of res judicata because it did not have subject matter jurisdiction vis-à-vis the jurisdictional amount pled in his Supplemental and Amending Petition. D'Aquin further urges that this matter presents a situation “when exceptional circumstances justify relief” and doubt exists regarding the applicability of the doctrine, thus it should not be applied. We are not persuaded by these arguments.

After a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the five elements of res judicata are satisfied as follows: 1 and 2) the April 6, 2023 default judgment is a valid judgment that became final with the Louisiana Supreme Court's denial of writs on December 27, 2024 - see Garcia Roofing Replacement, LLC v. D'Aquin, supra; 3) the parties are the same; 4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of the final judgment in the first litigation – all claims, including breach of contract and poor workmanship, existed and were known to D'Aquin before the default judgment was signed on April 6, 2023; and 5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation – all causes of action arose out of the November 12, 2021 contract for roofing services and D'Aquin was required through compulsory reconventional demand to bring all claims arising out of the transaction at that time. La. C.C.P arts. 425 and 1061.

Because all five criteria recognized by the Louisiana Supreme Court are met, we find the trial court properly granted the exception raising the objection of res judicata, dismissing with prejudice D'Aquin’s suit.

This assignment of error is without merit.

Assignment of Error Number Three: Sanctions and Attorney Fees

On appeal, D'Aquin argues that he violated no court order and filed no pleadings intended to cause delay. D'Aquin represents that he had a reasonable basis of fact and law to pursue his claims, which he zealously and vigorously pursued. He claims “no evidence [was] submitted to the [city] court that would substantiate an award of $7,500.00 in attorney fees.” On the other hand, Garcia provided the city court and this Court with a litany of factual support for its request for sanctions, as well as an affidavit itemizing its costs and expenses throughout the litigation and appellate proceedings for the various suits filed. Garcia contends that the award of attorney fees as a sanction is warranted under La C.C.P. art. 863.

Contrary to D'Aquin’s assertion, the city court judge opined that D'Aquin attempted forum shopping by filing suit in the 24th JDC followed by filing the supplemental and amending petition in Zachary City Court. The city court further found that D'Aquin was “litigating for the sole purpose of litigating.” A trial court's determination regarding the imposition of sanctions is subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. Ticker v. State Through Dep't of Transportation & Dev., 2024-0775 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/14/25), 410 So.3d 983, 991. Once the trial court finds sanctions appropriate, the type/amount of sanctions is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Connelly v. Lee, 96-1213 (La. App 1 Cir. 5/9/97), 699 So.2d 411, 414, writ denied, 97-2825 (La. 1/30/98), 709 So.2d 710. On this record, we find no manifest error in the city court's imposition of sanctions. We further find no abuse of discretion in the award of attorney fees in the amount of $7,500.00.

This assignment of error is without merit.

ANSWER TO APPEAL

Garcia has answered the appeal, seeking amendment to the award on the Motion for Sanctions to include costs in addition to attorney fees. Garcia further requests the award of $7,500.00 in attorney fees be increased commensurate with the fees as itemized in its affidavit presented to the city court in support of its motion. As discussed hereinabove, the award of sanctions was within the city court's discretion and will not be disturbed by this Court. Thus, the answer is denied in part.

Garcia also requests an award of attorney fees for defending this appeal. An increase in attorney fees is usually awarded where a party who was awarded attorney fees by the trial court is forced to and successfully defends an appeal. Zeigler Tree & Timber, Inc. v. Old River of New Orleans, LLC, 2022-1247 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/5/23), 371 So. 3d 82, 94. The award of additional attorney fees is to keep the appellate judgment consistent with the underlying judgment. Id. Accordingly, Garcia's answer is granted in part and we award additional attorney fees to Garcia for the work performed defending this appeal in the amount of $2,500.00.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the May 13, 2025 judgment of the Zachary City Court is affirmed. The answer to the appeal is granted in part and Michael D'Aquin is hereby ordered to pay Garcia Roofing Replacement, LLC additional attorney fees in the amount of $2,500.00 for work performed in connection with this appeal. In all other respects the answer is denied. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Appellant, Michael D'Aquin.

AFFIRMED; ANSWER GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

FOOTNOTES

4.   On transfer, the matter became file number 2025C00061, Zachary City Court.

5.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 964, Motion to Strike, provides that “[t]he court on motion of a party or on its own motion may at any time and after a hearing order stricken from any pleading any insufficient demand or defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

6.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 4841, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, provides:A. The subject matter jurisdiction of parish courts and city courts is limited by the amount in dispute and by the nature of the proceeding, as provided in this Chapter.B. For the purposes of this Chapter, the amount in dispute is determined by the amount demanded, including damages pursuant to Civil Code Articles 2315.3 and 2315.4, or value asserted in good faith by the plaintiff, but does not include interest, court costs, attorney fees, or penalties, whether provided by agreement or by law.C. If the demand asserted in an amended or supplemental pleading exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, the court shall transfer the action to a court of proper jurisdiction.

7.   Whether a motion to strike should be granted pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 964 rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Painter v. State Through Off. of Governor, 2023-0845 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/28/25), 417 So.3d 641, 645, reh'g denied (June 2, 2025).

8.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 425(A) provides that “[a] party shall assert all causes of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation.”

9.   The comments to La. C.C.P. art. 1061 explain:(a) Judicial efficiency is served by requiring the defendant through a compulsory reconventional demand to assert all causes of action he may have against the plaintiff that arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the basis for the plaintiff's action.(b) Furthermore, if the defendant has a cause of action arising out of the subject matter of the plaintiff's action, then the defense of res judicata will prevent relitigation of issues common to both causes of action except as otherwise provided by law. The requirement of a compulsory reconventional demand therefore also serves the interest of fairness by giving the defendant notice that he must assert his related cause of action.

THERIOT, J.