Danna v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.

hi partially dissent from the majority’s opinion as it relates to the plaintiffs claims under the Louisiana Whistleblower Statute.

It is well established that La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2) provides that where, as in the instant case, the party moving for summary judgment will not bear the burden of proof at trial, they are not required to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, but rather to point out to the court that an absence of factual support exists for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim.1 If the adverse party fails to produce factual support…