DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, Sr., Judge.
In this legal malpractice action, defendants-appellants, David A. Capasso and the Law Office of Capasso & Associates, appeal from the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff, Vicki Daigrepont, in the amount of $75,525.00 in damages. For the following reasons, we hereby reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings.
On November 16, 2012, plaintiffs, Angela Parker and Vicki Daigrepont, filed a petition for damages for legal malpractice against defendants, David A. Capasso and the Law Office of Capasso & Associates. Specifically, the petition for legal malpractice alleges, in pertinent part:
On July 14, 2014, defendants filed an answer admitting the allegations stated in the petition. Subsequently, defendants stipulated to liability, and a trial on damages was held on December 11, 2014.
At trial, plaintiff, Vicki Daigrepont, testified that Mr. Capasso's conduct was the reason her federal lawsuit to obtain loss of income, damages for emotional distress, and attorney's fees was dismissed. Ms. Daigrepont testified that she was hired at Jefferson Downs on April 1, 1980, and that she worked continuously as a clerk/video poker cashier until she was fired on November 24, 2009. Ms. Daigrepont testified that as a result of losing her job of thirty years, she was "very depressed" and "[v]ery embarrassed." As evidence of Ms. Daigrepont's loss of earnings for being fired, she introduced her 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 Federal tax returns.
After Ms. Daigrepont testified, plaintiffs' counsel notified the court that he had been recently notified [within two days of trial] that plaintiff, Angela Parker, was ill and unable to make the hearing. As such, plaintiffs' counsel requested that the district court sever Ms. Parker's claim. At that time, defendants' counsel stated that he "was actually expecting to call the other plaintiff [Ms. Parker] to contradict the testimony of the instant plaintiff [Ms. Daigrepont]." Nonetheless, the district judge granted plaintiff counsels request for a severance.
A judgment was rendered on April 9, 2015, whereby the district court awarded $75,525.00 in damages "in favor of plaintiffs, Angela Parker and Vicki Daigrepont, and against the defendants, David A. Capasso and the Law Office of Capasso and Associates." The judgment also awarded plaintiffs' attorney's fees in the amount of $24,923.00.
On April 20, 2015, plaintiffs, Ms. Parker and Ms. Daigrepont, filed a motion to correct judgment and/or new trial alleging that "[s]aid Judgment is in favor of both plaintiffs, but should only be in favor of plaintiff, Vicki Daigrepont, since the Angela Parker matter was stayed by the Court on December 11, 2014, because of Angela Parker's illness." On April 27, 2015, the district court issued the following order: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that judgment be rendered herein in favor of plaintiff, Vicki Daigrepont, and against the defendants, David A. Capasso and the Law Office of Capasso & Associates, in the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED, AND TWENTY FIVE ($75,525) DOLLARS." Defendants now appeal this final judgment by asserting the following assignments of error: (1) the district court committed manifest error when it allowed trial to continue after allowing one of the plaintiffs (Ms. Parker) to suddenly and unexpectedly sever the case during trial; (2) plaintiff is not entitled to damages in lost wages from the underlying suit; and (3) plaintiff is not entitled to emotional distress damages from the underlying suit.
Defendants argue on appeal that they lost their opportunity to present a complete defense when Ms. Parker [co-plaintiff] failed to appear to testify combined with the district court's decision to grant a sudden severance after Ms. Daigrepont had already given testimony. In response, Ms. Daigrepont argues that defendants could have issued a trial subpoena to Ms. Parker to ensure that her testimony would be heard, and that Ms. Parker could sever her case at any time she chose. After reviewing the applicable laws, we agree with defendants that it was legal error for the district court to grant a severance to Ms. Parker during the trial.
La. C.C.P. art. 463 allows two or more plaintiffs to be joined in the same suit, if: (1) there is a community of interest between the parties joined; (2) each of the actions cumulated is within the jurisdiction of the court and is brought in the proper venue; and (3) all of the actions cumulated are mutually consistent and employ the same form of procedure. See La. C.C.P. art. 463. Under these facts, we find that Ms. Parker and Ms. Daigrepont were properly joined as plaintiffs. Further, La. C.C.P. art. 465 allows separate trials of cumulated actions and states as follows:
Based on La. C.C.P. art. 465, we find that the district judge erred in granting a severance to a co-plaintiff