Background
Mack Browder sued Shoppers Value Foods, LLC and other presently unknown defendants in Baton Rouge City Court. Shoppers Value Foods moved for summary judgment.
In its reply supporting that motion, Shoppers Value Foods objected to evidence Browder had submitted. On January 13, 2026, the trial court denied summary judgment without ruling on those evidentiary objections, and Shoppers Value Foods sought supervisory review.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana Court of Appeal granted the writ and vacated the order denying summary judgment. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966(D)(2) required the trial court to state specifically, on the record or in writing, whether it sustained or overruled each evidentiary objection.
Because the trial court had not done so, the appellate court remanded the matter for compliance with article 966(D)(2). It ordered the trial court to determine the evidentiary issues and then rule again on Shoppers Value Foods’ summary-judgment motion under article 966(C)(4); it did not decide whether summary judgment should ultimately be granted.
Key Takeaways
- A Louisiana trial court must expressly sustain or overrule evidentiary objections raised in connection with summary judgment.
- A ruling on summary judgment may be vacated when the court fails to resolve those objections as article 966(D)(2) requires.
- The appellate court remanded for a renewed ruling after the evidentiary issues are decided, without resolving the merits of the summary-judgment motion.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that Louisiana’s summary-judgment procedure requires an explicit evidentiary record. Trial courts cannot leave properly raised objections unresolved before deciding whether the submitted materials establish or defeat summary judgment.
For litigants, the decision highlights the importance of raising evidentiary objections in the prescribed filings and ensuring that the trial court rules on each objection before addressing the motion’s merits.