gets.primecure.net

Tag: Negligence

  • Who’s Responsible When a Step Collapses?

    The following case deals with a common scenario: a guest gets injured at a business and sues, alleging negligence. But the legal outcome hinges on a crucial factor – whether the business owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition that caused the injury.

    Case Summary

    Melanie Mark was injured when a wooden step on a cabin staircase collapsed at a KOA campground in Lafayette, Louisiana. She sued KOA, claiming they were negligent in maintaining the property. However, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of KOA, finding that Ms. Mark failed to prove KOA had any knowledge of the defect in the stairs. Ms. Mark appealed this decision.

    Legal Principles

    The court’s decision revolved around Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317.1, which deals with premises liability. Here’s the key takeaway:

    Knowledge is Key: Property owners are only liable for injuries caused by defects if they knew, or should have known, about the defect and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the damage.
    The court also considered the duty of care owed by innkeepers to their guests:

    Innkeeper’s Duty: Innkeepers have a heightened duty to ensure their premises are safe and to warn guests of any hidden dangers. This includes conducting reasonable inspections.
    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the evidence and found no indication that KOA knew or should have known about the rotten step. Here’s why:

    No Prior Complaints: KOA had no record of any prior complaints or issues with the stairs.
    Regular Maintenance and Inspections: KOA conducted regular maintenance and yearly inspections, and no defects were found.
    Hidden Defect: The rot was hidden on the underside of the step, making it difficult to detect even with a reasonable inspection.
    Plaintiff’s Own Testimony: Ms. Mark herself testified that the stairs appeared fine and safe when she used them before the accident.
    Based on this, the court concluded that KOA did not breach its duty of care and was not liable for Ms. Mark’s injuries.

    Important Considerations

    This case highlights some important aspects of premises liability law:

    Burden of Proof: The injured party bears the burden of proving the property owner’s knowledge of the defect.
    Constructive Knowledge: Even if the owner didn’t have actual knowledge, they can still be liable if they should have known about the defect through reasonable care.
    Hidden Defects: Liability is less likely when the defect is hidden and not readily discoverable.
    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of KOA. This means Ms. Mark’s case was dismissed, and she was responsible for the costs of the appeal.

    This case serves as a reminder that proving negligence in premises liability cases requires demonstrating the property owner’s knowledge of the dangerous condition. When a defect is hidden and there’s no evidence the owner knew or should have known about it, it’s difficult to establish liability.

  • When Accidents Happen: The Limits of a Homeowner’s Liability for a Child’s Injury

    A tragic accident involving a young boy with autism has raised questions about the legal responsibility of homeowners when someone is injured on their property. The case of Justin Stollenwerck v. Robert Schweggman, Jr., et al. explores the boundaries of a homeowner’s duty of care, especially when the injured party is the guest of a tenant. This blog post examines the case details and the court’s ruling, shedding light on the complexities of premises liability law.

    The Accident:

    Ryse Stollenwerck, a five-year-old boy with autism, was severely injured while playing at his mother’s boyfriend’s house. The boyfriend, Robert Schweggman Jr., was spinning another child around when they accidentally struck Ryse, causing serious injuries that left him wheelchair-bound and unable to speak.

    Ryse’s father sued Schweggman and the homeowner, John Ehret, claiming negligence. They argued that Ehret, who lived in Texas and rarely visited the Louisiana property, was negligent in allowing Schweggman and his son to play unsupervised, leading to Ryse’s injuries. They also suggested that Ehret, knowing Schweggman’s employment history, should have been aware that he was not equipped to care for a young autistic child.

    Ehret moved for summary judgment, arguing that he owed no duty to Ryse and had no obligation to supervise Schweggman or the children.

    The trial court granted Ehret’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. The court emphasized that homeowners generally have no duty to protect others from the actions of third parties unless a “special relationship” exists, such as parent-child or employer-employee. In this case, no such relationship existed between Ehret and Schweggman. The court also noted that Ehret was unaware that Ryse and his mother were living in the house and had no knowledge of Schweggman’s activities with the children.

    Key Takeaways:

    This case highlights several important legal principles:

    • Limited Duty of Care for Homeowners: Homeowners are not automatically responsible for injuries that occur on their property, especially when caused by the actions of third parties.
    • Special Relationships and Duty to Protect: A duty to protect others from harm arises only in specific relationships, such as parent-child or employer-employee.
    • Foreseeability and Negligence: A homeowner can be held liable for negligence if the injury was foreseeable and they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. However, in this case, the court found that Ehret had no reason to foresee the accident.

    Conclusion:

    The Stollenwerck case serves as a reminder of the limitations of a homeowner’s liability for injuries occurring on their property. While the outcome is undoubtedly heartbreaking for the Stollenwerck family, it reinforces the legal principle that homeowners are not automatically responsible for the actions of others on their premises.

    Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Homeowner’s Liability: Homeowner Liability Insurance Coverage Upheld for Harmful Accident and What happens if a roofer is injured while putting a new roof on your house?

  • Sewage Spill Showdown: Cedar Lodge’s Fight for Justice Against Fairway View Apartments

    A picturesque pond, once teeming with life, transformed into a murky, foul-smelling mess. The culprit? Alleged sewage contamination from a neighboring apartment complex. This is the story of Cedar Lodge Plantation’s battle against Fairway View Apartments in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a legal fight that highlights the complexities of environmental disputes and property damage claims.

    The Contamination Crisis:

    In 2012, Cedar Lodge discovered their pond had been contaminated with sewage, evidenced by high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The source was traced back to the adjacent Fairway View Apartments. Cedar Lodge’s plans to develop their property into a residential and commercial community were shattered, leading them to sue the apartment owners and their sewage treatment contractor.

    Legal Twists and Turns:

    • Expert Witness Drama: The district court initially excluded Cedar Lodge’s environmental expert, Suresh Sharma, from testifying. This decision was later overturned on appeal, except for opinions related to specific federal standards.

    • Summary Judgment for the Defendants: The district court granted summary judgment to Fairway View Apartments, dismissing Cedar Lodge’s claims. The court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence of damage, even though contamination had occurred.

    • Appeal and Partial Reversal: The Court of Appeals partially reversed the district court’s decision, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Cedar Lodge’s negligence and nuisance claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Environmental Disputes and Property Rights: This case underscores the importance of environmental responsibility and the rights of property owners to be free from contamination caused by neighboring entities.

    • The Role of Expert Witnesses: The admissibility of expert testimony can significantly impact the outcome of a case. The appeals court’s decision to allow Sharma’s testimony demonstrates the importance of carefully evaluating an expert’s qualifications and the relevance of their opinions.

    • Damages in Environmental Cases: Determining damages in environmental cases can be complex. While regulatory standards are important, they don’t necessarily dictate the extent of damages a property owner can recover.

    The Fight Continues: The legal battle between Cedar Lodge and Fairway View is far from over. The case has been remanded to the district court, where a jury will decide whether Fairway View is liable and what damages, if any, should be awarded to Cedar Lodge.

    Additional Sources: CEDAR LODGE PLANTATION, L.L.C., v. CSHV FAIRWAY VIEW I, L.L.C.; CSHV FAIRWAY VIEW II, L.L.C.; CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INCORPORATED; SEWER TREATMENT SPECIALISTS, L.L.C.,

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Toxic Spills: Petroleum Corporation Releases Millions of Gallons of Toxins Harming Many in Calcasieu Parish and Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court’s Approval of Settlement Agreement in Property Contamination Lawsuit

  • Louisiana Court Upholds Medical Malpractice Review Requirement in Hospital Device Lawsuit

    In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, the court reinforced the importance of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA) in determining the course of lawsuits against healthcare providers. The case involved a patient who allegedly suffered injuries due to a medical device used after surgery.

    Gregory Arrington, following surgery at St. Tammany Parish Hospital, was provided with an Alternating Leg Pressure (ALP) wrap to prevent blood clots. He claimed the device malfunctioned, causing him harm. The Arringtons sued the hospital, alleging negligence in the selection, purchase, and implementation of the ALP wrap.

    The hospital countered with a dilatory exception of prematurity, arguing that the claims fell under medical malpractice and required a medical review panel’s evaluation before proceeding to court. The trial court agreed and dismissed the Arringtons’ claims against the hospital without prejudice. The Arringtons appealed this decision.

    The Court’s Ruling and the Coleman Factors:

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, focusing on the LMMA’s definition of “malpractice” and the six “Coleman factors” used to determine if a claim falls under medical malpractice.

    The court held that the hospital’s actions regarding the ALP device constituted “healthcare” under the LMMA. They reasoned that the selection and use of medical devices are intertwined with patient treatment and require medical expertise.

    The court also considered the Coleman factors, particularly:

    • Treatment-Related: The use of the ALP wrap was directly related to Mr. Arrington’s post-surgery treatment and involved professional medical judgment.
    • Expert Medical Evidence: Determining if the hospital was negligent in choosing and using the device would necessitate expert medical testimony.
    • Assessment of Patient’s Condition: The decision to use the ALP wrap involved assessing Mr. Arrington’s risk for DVT, a medical condition.
    • Physician-Patient Relationship: The incident occurred within the context of a physician-patient relationship and the scope of activities a hospital is licensed to perform.
    • Injury Related to Treatment: The injury allegedly wouldn’t have happened if Mr. Arrington hadn’t sought treatment at the hospital.

    Things to Know: 

    • Importance of the Medical Review Panel: The LMMA mandates that medical malpractice claims be reviewed by a medical review panel before litigation. This process aims to filter out meritless claims and encourage early resolution.
    • Broad Scope of the LMMA: The LMMA’s definition of “malpractice” is expansive, encompassing not just the direct treatment of patients but also decisions about medical devices and equipment used in their care.
    • Coleman Factors as a Guide: The six Coleman factors provide a framework for courts to determine whether a claim falls under medical malpractice, even in cases where the line between administrative and medical decisions may seem blurred.

    This case emphasizes the importance of understanding the LMMA and its procedural requirements when pursuing claims against healthcare providers in Louisiana. It reinforces the necessity of a medical review panel’s assessment in cases involving allegations of negligence related to medical devices and equipment. If you have suffered an injury due to a medical device, it is crucial to seek legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the LMMA and protect your rights.

    Additional Sources: GREGORY ARRINGTON HUSBAND OF/AND CLARNETTA ARRINGTON VERSUS ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 D/B/A ST. TANIMANY PARISH HOSPITAL AND CURRIE MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Medical Malpractice: What Type of Expert Testimony Is Needed in a Louisiana Medical Malpractice Lawsuit? and Louisiana Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case: The Importance of Expert Testimony

  • Slipping in Stores: When Does the Store’s Responsibility Kick In?

    We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case of Barton v. Walmart highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

    In 2016, Douglas Barton was shopping at a Walmart store in Alexandria, Louisiana, during a rainy day. As he entered the store, he slipped on a wet spot on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. He sued Walmart, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment for their customers.

    Walmart denied liability, arguing that they had no knowledge of the wet spot and that it likely occurred moments before Barton entered the store due to the wind blowing rain inside. They presented evidence of an inspection conducted earlier that morning, which had not noted any hazards.

    Barton countered, arguing that the inspection was inadequate and that the wetness, which he believed to be condensation, had likely been there for a while. He pointed out that he had been in the area for some time and hadn’t seen anyone else slip or create the wet spot. He asserted that Walmart had “constructive notice” of the hazard—meaning they should have known about it.

    The trial court initially ruled in favor of Walmart, granting them summary judgment and dismissing Barton’s case. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

    The appeals court focused on the issue of “constructive notice,” a legal concept that holds a merchant liable if a hazard existed for a long enough time that they should have reasonably discovered and addressed it. The court found that Barton had presented enough evidence to raise a genuine question about how long the wet spot had been on the floor.

    The specific evidence the court pointed to was:

    • The moisture was present before Barton fell.
    • Barton was in the area for a while and didn’t see anyone else there.
    • The moisture wasn’t near any products that could have recently spilled.

    Because Barton presented this evidence, the appeals court decided a jury should determine whether Walmart had constructive notice of the hazard and was liable for Barton’s injuries.

    Things to Remember: 

    • In slip-and-fall cases, the injured party is required to prove the merchant was negligent. This usually means showing that the merchant created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it.
    • Even if a merchant didn’t directly create a hazard or know about it, they can still be liable if it existed for a long enough time that they should have discovered and addressed it.
    • The outcome of these cases often hinges on evidence about how long the hazard existed, any witnesses, and the store’s policies and procedures for inspections and maintenance.

    Slip and fall cases can be complex. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident, it’s essential to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to understand your rights and options. They can help you gather evidence, build a strong case, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

    Remember, the law is on your side if you can prove the merchant’s negligence. Don’t let a slip-and-fall accident leave you with lasting physical and financial burdens.

    Additional Sources: DOUGLAS W. BARTON VERSUS WAL-MART STORES, INC. 

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Slip and Fall Lawsuits in Louisiana: When Are Stairs An Unreasonably Unsafe Condition? and When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability

  • A Car Crash, a Faulty Repair, and a Battle Over Damages

    Patricia Spann’s life took a dramatic turn when she lost control of her Chevrolet Cobalt, resulting in a severe accident that left her with multiple fractures and a lengthy hospital stay. She believed the cause of the accident was a faulty power steering system, recently replaced by Gerry Lane Chevrolet as part of a recall. Spann sued Gerry Lane, alleging negligence in the repair and the hiring and training of their mechanics.

    The legal journey was not a smooth one. Initially, the trial court dismissed Spann’s case, granting Gerry Lane’s motion for summary judgment due to a perceived lack of evidence. However, Spann fought back, securing a new trial based on additional evidence from her expert witness.

    This expert, a mechanical engineer, had conducted multiple inspections of Spann’s car, ultimately concluding that the power steering system failed due to improper installation. Gerry Lane challenged the admissibility of this expert’s testimony, arguing it lacked scientific basis and that some inspections violated a court order. However, the court allowed the testimony, stating that challenges to the expert’s conclusions were about the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court also determined that while the inspections without the defendants present were “troubling,” there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

    At trial, a jury found Gerry Lane partially at fault for the accident and awarded Spann damages for medical expenses and lost wages. However, they did not award any damages for pain and suffering, a decision that Spann challenged. The trial court agreed with Spann, finding the jury’s verdict inconsistent. It granted a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV), significantly increasing the damages to include a substantial amount for pain and suffering. (see La. C.C.P. art. 1811).

    Gerry Lane appealed, arguing several points, including the admissibility of the expert’s testimony, the evidence from the inspections, the granting of a new trial, and the large increase in damages awarded by the JNOV.

    The appeals court carefully reviewed the evidence and legal arguments. It upheld the trial court’s decisions regarding the expert testimony, the evidence from the inspections, and the new trial. However, while it agreed that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent and a JNOV was warranted, it found the trial court’s increase in damages to be excessive. The appeals court reduced the additional award for pain and suffering, striking a balance between recognizing Spann’s injuries and respecting the jury’s initial findings.

    This case underscores several important legal concepts. It highlights the critical role of expert witnesses in complex cases, particularly when technical or scientific issues are involved. It also emphasizes the importance of adhering to court orders and the potential consequences of violating them, even if unintentional.

    Furthermore, the case demonstrates the power of a JNOV to correct an inconsistent or unjust jury verdict. However, it also shows that even when a JNOV is granted, the court’s discretion in awarding damages is not unlimited and must be based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence.

    Spann v. Gerry Lane serves as a reminder that the legal process can be long and complex, with multiple layers of review and potential for appeals. It underscores the importance of seeking experienced legal counsel to navigate these complexities and ensure that justice is served.

    Additional Sources:PATRICIA SPANN VERSUS GERRY LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A GERRY LANE CHEVROLET, ABC AND XYZ

    Written by Berniard Law Firm 

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Increase of Jury Awards: How can an Appeal Affect a Jury’s Award for Mental and Physical Pain and Suffering?  and Allocating Damages in Wrongful Death Cases: Navigating the High Standard of JNOV Motion

  • When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability

    We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent case of Foto v. Rouse’s Enterprises, LLC, highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

    In 2013, Daisy Foto was shopping at a Rouse’s store in Louisiana. She slipped on a clear liquid on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. Foto sued Rouse’s, claiming they were responsible for her injuries because they either created the hazardous condition, knew about it, or should have known about it.

    Rouse’s argued they had no liability because Foto couldn’t prove they created the spill, knew about it beforehand, or that it had been there long enough for them to reasonably discover and clean it up. They presented evidence of a store inspection conducted earlier that morning, showing no hazards were noted.

    Foto countered, arguing that the inspection was inadequate and that the spill had likely been there for some time, given that she had been in the aisle for about ten minutes and didn’t see anyone else. She argued this was enough to establish that Rouse’s had “constructive notice” of the hazard—meaning they should have known about it.

    The trial court initially sided with Rouse’s, granting them summary judgment and dismissing Foto’s case. However, an appeals court reversed that decision. The appeals court determined that Foto had presented enough evidence to create a genuine question about how long the spill had been on the floor. The specific evidence the appeals court pointed to was the following;

    1. The liquid was present on Aisle 12 before Foto fell.
    2. Foto was on the aisle for about 10 minutes before falling, and no one else was there.
    3. The liquid wasn’t near similar products, suggesting it didn’t spill recently.

    Because Foto presented that evidence in her opposition to Rouses’ motion, the appeals court felt a jury should decide whether Rouse had constructive notice of the hazard and was liable for Foto’s injuries.

    In slip and fall cases, the burden is on the injured party to prove the merchant was negligent. This usually means showing the merchant created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it. Even if a merchant didn’t directly create a hazard or know about it, they can still be liable if it existed for a long enough time that they should have discovered and addressed it. The outcome of these cases often hinges on evidence about how long the hazard existed, any witnesses, and the store’s policies and procedures for inspections and maintenance.

    Slip and fall cases can be complex. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident, it’s essential to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to understand your rights and options.

    Additional Sources: Foto v. Rouse’s Enterprises, LLC

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Injury Premise Liablity: Construction Worker’s Electrocuted Injury Leads to Dispute Among Defendants Over Liability

  • Driver Not Liable for Passenger’s Injury in Accident Beyond His Control

    Sometimes, being a passenger in a car can be a frustrating and disturbing experience. This is especially true when actions beyond the passenger’s control, such as being involved in a collision, put his or her life in danger. When such a situation arises, the injured passenger will, understandably, seek compensation from the responsible party. However, if the person who caused the accident leaves the scene and is never apprehended by law enforcement, an injured person may turn their attention elsewhere for financial compensation. Such a situation arose following a car accident on a stretch of highway between Jennings and Lafayette, Louisiana. 

    Kyle Jordan was driving a rental car with Riley Moulton as a passenger. The vehicle was sideswiped, causing Jordan’s car to flip over and injure Moulton. The hit-and-run driver was never identified, so Mouton sued both Jordan and the rental car company, EAN Holdings, for damages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that since Mouton admitted in his deposition that Jordan was driving safely at the time of the accident and did nothing to cause it, Moulton offered no evidence to support a theory of recovery against Jordan or EAN Holdings. The trial court granted the defendant’s motions for summary judgment. Mouton appealed to Louisiana’s Third Circuit Court of Appeal.

    The Appellate Court reviewed the facts of the case as laid out by Mouton himself in his deposition testimony. Mouton stated that Jordan had set the cruise control in the car to 70 MPH, consistent with the speed limit, and was “driving correct.” He further testified that the accident occurred when Jordan made a proper change into the left lane to pass a large truck.

    A driver in a Kia came up from behind and, in a dangerous and illegal move known as “shooting the gauntlet,” attempted to pass Jordan’s vehicle on the right-hand side between it and the truck Jordan was trying to pass. The Kia sideswipedan’s vehicle, sending it out of control. Jordan attempted to regain control but overcorrected and flipped the car. Mouton’s testimony made it evident that Jordan could not have done anything to avoid the accident.

    Summary judgment should be granted if “the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial.” Hardy v. Bowie, 744 So.2d 606 (La. 1999). In this instance, the Court noted, Mouton was unable to point to any evidence suggesting Jordan’s liability for the injuries he suffered in the crash.

    Mouton freely admitted in his deposition that Jordan was “driving as he was supposed to” by following the speed limit and remaining in his lane. Mouton also revealed that Jordan could not have taken any actions to avoid the accident. It was beyond his control, and the Kia driver was solely responsible for side-swiping Jordan. 

    Jordan also was not at fault for any action he may have taken after being sideswiped by the Kia under the sudden emergency doctrine. The doctrine provides that “one who finds himself in imminent danger, without sufficient time to weigh and consider all of the circumstances or means of avoiding danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to choose what subsequently appears to be the better method.” Bryn Lynn Corp. v. Valliere, 434 So.2d 600 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

    The Court determined that there was nothing Jordan could have done to avoid the accident, which occurred suddenly and unexpectedly; under the sudden emergency doctrine, he cannot be considered negligent for failing to regain control of the car. Instead, the driver of the Kia was solely at fault for the injuries Mouton suffered. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Jordan’s favor.

    Similarly, the Court held that Moulton offered no theory of recovery against EAN Holdings, which simply rented a car to Jordan. When a car renter is in “exclusive physical control of the lease object,” negligence “cannot be imputed to the lessor.” Dixie Drive It Yourself Sys. v. American Beverage Co., 137 So.2d 298 (La. 1962).  The Court noted that even if Jordan had been at fault for Mouton’s injuries, EAN Holdings would not have been liable under this “well settled” rule. Thus, the Court also affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of EAN Holdings.

    This case demonstrates two important principles. First, it shows how courts attempt to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently through summary judgment when a plaintiff fails to provide factual support for his theory of recovery. Second, it demonstrates the operation of the sudden emergency doctrine that limits a person’s liability when unexpectedly thrust into a dangerous situation caused by another party’s negligent or reckless actions. In what should be a comfort to motorists across Louisiana, the doctrine affords them some leniency for not acting perfectly reasonably when they are put in a situation for which they are not trained and have little or no experience. In this case, Jordan was not a stunt driver or car racer; the Court determined he could not be expected to know how to react perfectly when his car was sideswiped at highway speeds.

    Additional Source:  RILEY MOUTON VERSUS EAN HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm