STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT CHARMAINE RICHARD RENFROE NO. 2020 CW 1056 AND WARREN L. RENFROE

VERSUS

EVRIHOLDER PRODUCTS, LLC, MARCH 23, 2021 AND WAL- MART STORES, INC.

In Re: Evriholder Products, LLC, for applying supervisory writs, 16th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary, No. 131538.

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., MCDONALD, WELCH, CHUTZ AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s October 22, 2020 judgment denying the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Evriholder Products, LLC, is hereby reversed.

Evriholder Products, LLC to the successfully pointed out district court the absence of factual support for an essential element of Plaintiffs' claim, namely that Evriholder Products, LLC is the manufacturer of the subject grill brush that caused Mrs. Renfroe' s injury. See Baldwin v. Kikas, 93- 1739 ( La. App. 4th Cir. 4/ 14/ 94), 633 So. 2d 1324, 1327, writ denied, 94- 1264 La. 9/ 2/ 94), 643 So. 2d 144 ( affirming judgment because summary of insufficient evidence of the identity of manufacturer or seller); Maldanado v. State Through Dept. of Transportation, 618 So. 2d 537, 538- 39 ( La. App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 623 So. 2d 1309 ( La. 1993) ( proof of identity of the manufacturer is an element of plaintiff' s claim). Plaintiffs failed to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. As a result, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Evriholder Products, LLC is granted, and all claims asserted by Plaintiffs, Charmaine Richard Renfroe and Warren L. Renfroe, against Evriholder Products, LLC are dismissed with prejudice.

JMM JEW WRC CHH

Whipple, C. J., dissents. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant, Evriholder Products, LLC, Plaintiffs presented two affidavits that provided factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Evrihoder Products, LLC is the manufacturer of the grill brush that caused Plaintiffs' harm.

Therefore, I would deny the writ application.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT r

n

EPUTY C R OF COURT FOR THE COURT