Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 96 of 139
effect of a judgment attaches once a final judgment has been signed by the trial court and
would bar any action filed thereafter unless the judgment is reversed on appeal.” Id. (quoting
LA. REV. STAT. § 13:4231, comment (d)). In Maples v. LeBlanc, Maples & Waddell, LLC,
No. Civ. A. 02-3662, 2003 WL 21467540 (E.D. La. June 20, 2003), the plaintiff argued that
a prior Louisiana state court decision was not final because it was on appeal and the
Louisiana res judicata statute provides that “a valid and final judgment is conclusive between
the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review,” id. at *3. The court rejected this
interpretation of the statute because it was inconsistent with the case law and with comment
(d) of the Louisiana res judicata statute. Id. at *4.
One Louisiana court has held that a judgment is not final while an appeal is pending.
See Dupre v. Floyd, 01-2399, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/1/02); 825 So. 2d 1238, 1240. But that
court relied on “[t]wo older cases under prior law,” Mente & Co. v. Anciens Etablissements
Verdier-Dufour & Cie, 149 So. 492, 493 (La. 1933), and Richmond v. Newson, 24 So. 2d
174, 175 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1945), which involved a narrower version of Louisiana preclusion
law. Before the 1991 statutory amendments, Louisiana law on res judicata was substantially
narrower than federal law. See Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Placid Refining Co., 95-
0654 (La. 1/16/96); 666 So. 2d 624, 631. The original Louisiana doctrine of res judicata
was based on presuming the correctness of the prior judgment rather than on extinguishing
the causes of action that might have been raised in the litigation that led to that judgment.
See id. at 631–32. The court in Dupre relied on cases that were based on that presumption
of correctness, ignoring the fact that the current version of Louisiana res judicata law is more
96