Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Lead Opinion

                  by Judge Monique G. Morial](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10810012/devin-james-barnett-v-the-domain-companies-llc-domain-cos-management/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Devin James Barnett v. the Domain Companies LLC, Domain Cos. Management LLC, Domain Companies of Louisiana, LLC, Domain South Market, LLC and Xyz Insurance Company

Louisiana Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2025-CA-0609
• Judges: Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano; Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase; Judge Monique G. Morial

• Disposition: Reversed and Remanded Lobrano, J., Concurs With Reasons

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Reversed and Remanded Lobrano, J., Concurs With Reasons

Lead Opinion

                        by Judge Monique G. Morial

DEVIN JAMES BARNETT * NO. 2025-CA-0609

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
THE DOMAIN COMPANIES *
LLC, DOMAIN COS. FOURTH CIRCUIT
MANAGEMENT LLC, *
DOMAIN COMPANIES OF STATE OF LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA, LLC, DOMAIN *******
SOUTH MARKET, LLC AND
XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2020-10453, DIVISION “L-6”
Honorable Kern A. Reese

---

Judge Monique G. Morial

---

(Court composed of Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase,
Judge Monique G. Morial)

LOBRANO, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS

M. Palmer Lambert
PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN
3500 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 402
Metairie, LA 70002

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

David K. Persons
HAILEY McNAMARA HALL LARMANN & PAPALE, L.L.P.
3445 N. Causeway Blvd
Suite 800
Metairie, LA 70002

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

REVERSED AND REMANDED
MARCH 17, 2026
Appellant, Devin James Barnett, (“Appellant”), appeals the June 18, 2025

MGM summary judgment dismissing his personal injury claim for damages against the
TGC
Appellees, the Domain Companies, LLC, Domain Cos. Management, LLC,

Domain Companies of Louisiana, LLC and Domain South Market, LLC,

(“Appellees”). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court

and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the early morning hours of December 15, 2019, Appellant was robbed at

gun point and shot in the leg while walking his dog, Riley, near South Rampart

Street. Prior to the shooting, he attended holiday celebrations with his law firm in

the French Quarter, and returned home by pedi-cab at approximately 1:30 a.m. to

his downtown residence, The Paramount. As a result of this incident, Appellant,

suffered a serious injury to his leg, endured several surgeries to preserve his leg

function, and was hospitalized for approximately four months following the

shooting.

1
On December 9, 2020, Appellant filed a petition for damages alleging that

Appellees did not exercise reasonable care and failed to provide lighting, security

personnel, or otherwise provide accommodations so their residents could safely

walk their pets in their neighborhood. He also alleged that Appellees’ negligence in

implementing an unsafe pet policy which required its residents to walk their pets

outside the Paramount’s premises was the proximate cause of his injuries as they

had actual and constructive knowledge of the criminal activity in the surrounding

downtown area. Appellees filed an Answer in April 2021 denying liability and

alleging that the shooting was the intentional act of a third party, and the failure of

Appellant to exercise reasonable care.

On February 13, 2025, Appellant filed a motion to compel discovery and

1442 deposition.1 On February 20, 2025, Appellees filed a motion to continue trial

arguing that the parties would be unable to complete discovery by the deadline

because of disputes that had arisen regarding discovery issues. While Appellees

had pending records subpoenas directed to Appellant’s experts, and had noticed

their depositions, Appellant sought to pursue additional discovery regarding

criminal activity near The Paramount and requested to conduct a 1442 deposition.

Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment on February 20, 2025

arguing that they did not owe Appellant a duty to protect him from the criminal

acts of third persons which did not occur on their premises. They further argued

1 Appellant propounded discovery requests to Appellees on October 17, 2024. Appellant argued

in his motion to compel that he did not receive responses to those requests until February 13,
2025. Appellant also previously noticed a 1442 deposition in October 2023, and issued a revised
notice on November 18, 2024. He argued in his motion to compel that to date Appellees had yet
to identify a corporate representative to participate in the deposition.

2
that Appellant knowingly entered into three separate leases with The Paramount

and acknowledged upon signing each lease that Appellees would not provide

security. Appellant filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment a few

months later responding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether

Appellees owed Appellant a legal duty, and whether the scope of duty owed by

Appellees encompassed the risk of harm that resulted in Appellant’s injuries.

Appellant also argued that the motion for summary judgment was premature as he

did not have the opportunity to conduct adequate discovery.

The parties filed a joint motion to continue the trial date and for a status

conference to reset deadlines on March 19, 2025 seeking additional time to

respond to discovery requests and to prepare for trial. Appellant’s motion to

compel and Appellees’ motion for summary judgment were set for hearing on May

16, 2025. On the hearing date, the trial court only considered Appellees’ motion

for summary judgment and rendered judgment on June 18, 2025 granting summary

judgment, dismissing Appellant’s claims with prejudice.2 This timely appeal

followed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Appellant assigns as error the trial court’s finding that Appellees had no duty

to protect Appellant from the criminal acts of third persons although he was off

the premises due to Appellees’ pet policy, and walked his dog in the location

2 The June 18, 2025 judgment neither addresses nor disposes of Appellant’s motion to compel.

3
advised by Appellees, and asserting that genuine issues of material fact remain in

dispute that would preclude summary judgment.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

An appellate court reviews a motion for summary judgment de novo “using

the same criteria that the trial judge utilizes in determination of whether summary

judgment is appropriate, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”

Hooper v. Hero Lands Co., 15-0929, p. 12 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/30/16), 216 So.3d

965, 973. “[A]s a result we are not required to analyze the facts and evidence with

deference to the judgment of the trial court or its reasons for judgment.” Precept

Credit Opportunities Fund, L.P v. Elmore, 2021-0502, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir.

4/20/22), 338 So.3d 87, 90 (citation omitted).

The burden of proof rests with the mover. La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)1. However,

“if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the

court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover’s burden on the motion

does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim,

action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court the absence of factual support

for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense.

The burden is on the adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to establish

the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Id.

4
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, the adverse

party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but he must

by affidavits, or otherwise, “set for specific facts showing that there is a genuine

issue for trial.” La. C.C.P. art. 967(B). See Corbajal v. Chris Owens French

Quarter Parade, LLC, 24-00191, p. 4 (La. 5/21/24), 385 So.3d 236, 238. (citation

omitted). “Once a motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by

the moving party, the failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a

material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion.” Id. (citation

omitted). “A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree; if

reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is no need for trial on

that issue and summary judgment is appropriate.” Crosby v. Sahuque Realty Co.,

Inc., 21-0167, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/13/21), 366 So. 3d 123, 128. (citation

omitted). In this case, Appellees will not bear the burden of proof at trial. Thus, as

the mover, their burden is to show an absence of factual support for one or more

elements essential to Appellant’s claim.” See Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels,

Louisiana, Inc., 24-00840, p. 6 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So.3d 573, 579.

Pursuant to our de novo review, we first consider whether there is merit to

Appellant’s argument, in his opposition to Appellees’ motion for summary

judgment, that summary judgment was premature as the parties were still

conducting discovery before addressing the merits of this appeal. “When discovery

is alleged to be incomplete, a trial court has the discretion to either hear the

summary judgment motion or to grant a continuance to allow further discovery.”

5
Roadrunner Transportation Sys. v. Brown, 17-0040, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir.

5/10/17), 219 So.3d 1265, 1272 (citation omitted). A trial court’s decision to hear

the motion for summary judgment is subject to an abuse of discretion standard.

Rivarde v. City of New Orleans, 15-0655, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/9/16), 190 So.3d

400, 403.

“Although the language of [Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure] article 966

does not grant a party the absolute right to delay a decision on a motion for

summary judgment until all discovery is complete, the law does require that the

parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case.” Francois v. Ports America

Louisiana, L.L.C., 20-0440, p.5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/21), 314 So.3d 894, 897

(quoting Serpas v. Univ. Healthcare Sys., 16-0948, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/8/17),

213 So.3d 427, 428. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that unless the plaintiff

can demonstrate a likely injustice, a suit should not be delayed pending discovery

when at an early stage it appears that there is no genuine issue of fact. Rivarde, 15-

0655, p.7, 190 So.3d at 405.

The jurisprudence has pinpointed four factors when considering a claim of

inadequate discovery:

(i) whether the party was ready to go to trial,
(ii) whether the party indicated what additional discovery was needed,
(iii) whether the party took any steps to conduct additional discovery
during the period between the filing of the motion and the hearing on
it, and
(iv) whether the discovery issue was raised in the trial court before the
entry of summary judgment.

Succession of Hickman, 22-0730, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/15/23), 359 So.3d 584

591 (citing Roadrunner, 17-0040, pp.11-12, 219 So.3d at 1273.) Applying these

6
factors to the present case, we agree with Appellant’s argument that there has not

been adequate time for discovery.

First, neither party was ready for trial as evidenced by Appellees’ motion to

continue trial filed in early February 2025 in which they state, “[t]he parties will be

unable to complete the discovery by the April 5, 2025 deadline, because of

disputes which have arisen regarding discovery issues.” Appellees scheduled a life

care planning evaluation for the Appellant on February 11, 2025 and was in the

process of scheduling evaluations with a neurosurgeon and psychiatrist. They had

also issued records subpoenas to Appellant’s experts and noticed their depositions.3

Shortly thereafter, the parties filed a joint motion to continue the trial

acknowledging the discovery issues and arguing that the current scheduling order

did not afford either party sufficient time to prepare for trial.4 The trial court

granted the joint motion to continue trial; however, the record does not reflect that

parties scheduled a new trial date.

Second, Appellant indicated in his February 13, 2025 motion to compel and

his opposition to Appellees’ motion for summary that he needed to conduct

additional discovery regarding the criminal activity in the area of The Paramount,

and that Appellee had not yet produced corporate documents, safety policies and

procedures pertaining to security measures at The Paramount as he had requested.

Also, Appellant noticed a 1442 deposition in November, 2024, and Appellees had

neither identified a corporate representative nor produced him for a deposition

prior to the filing of the motion for summary judgment. The parties held a Rule

3 Appellees also alleged that Appellant would not produce his experts unless permitted to
conduct further discovery regarding the criminal activity in the area surrounding the Paramount.
4 Pursuant to the trial court’s scheduling order, the discovery cut-off was April 5, 2025, and trial

was originally set on May 5, 2025.

7
10.1 conference in early January 2025, and had several telephone conferences, but

Appellees had not provided responses to the outstanding discovery responses, the

1442 deposition, or a pending request for production of documents.

Third, the record reflects that the Appellant took steps to conduct additional

discovery as he filed a motion to compel prior to the filing of the Appellees’

motion for summary judgment, and motion to continue trial. Moreover, he issued a

subpoena to Pinnacle Security, a company that previously provided security

services to The Paramount, on February 25, 2025. Lastly, the fourth factor has

been met as Appellant raised the issue of lack of adequate discovery before the

trial court in his memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment,

and in argument at the hearing on the motion, in which he stated: “We haven’t had

full discovery in this case yet. Your Honor knows that we have another motion

pending as well.”5

In the cases cited supra regarding inadequate discovery, the trial court

tackled the issue before ruling on the motion for summary judgment. In Hickman,

the trial court acknowledged appellant’s outstanding discovery request for medical

records, and found that she had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery and

granted summary judgment. 22-0730, p. 4, 359 So.3d at 589. In Roadrunner, the

trial court also recognized appellant’s concern regarding whether adequate time for

discovery had been allowed before entering summary judgment in favor of the

appellee. 17-0040, p.13, 219 So.3d at 1274. This Court reversed both matters

finding that the district courts failed to allow adequate time for discovery.

5 We also note for the record that while this matter has been pending in the trial court since

December 2020, Appellant’s present counsel did not enroll in this case until July 2023. Further,
pursuant to the trial court’s March 6, 2024 scheduling order, discovery was due to be completed
in April 2025.

8
In the present case, Appellant’s motion to compel and Appellees’ motion for

summary judgment were both set for hearing before the trial court on May 16,

2025, and the court proceeded with hearing only the motion for summary

judgment. Although Appellant argued the issue of inadequate discovery during the

summary judgment hearing, the trial court did not address his argument or

otherwise dispose of his pending motion to compel.6 Based on the Roadrunner

factors, and the procedural posture of the case prior to the summary judgment

hearing7, we find the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Appellees’

motion for summary judgment without even considering Appellant’s inadequate

discovery argument. We find that trial court should have disposed of the pending

motion to compel prior to ruling on Appellees’ motion for summary judgment.

Finding that Appellees’ motion for summary judgment was premature, we

pretermit discussion on the merits of Appellant’s assignment of error.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the June 18, 2025 judgment of the trial court

granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment is reversed. This matter is

remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

6 The judgment rendered on June 18, 2025 dismissed Appellant’s claims with prejudice, but does

not address the pending motion to compel.
7 Appellant filed his discovery motion prior to the filing of Appellees’ motion for summary

judgment, and Appellees conceded in their motion to continue trial and the joint motion to
continue the parties’ ongoing discovery issues.

9