2019-CA-0337 Precedential Appeal Converted to Writ; Writ Granted; Relief Denied Chase, J., Concurs With Reasons Processed

Dr. Carrol I. Fischer, Jr. v. Chad Rogers, Cuvee, L.L.C., Decatur Hotels, LLC and the New Orleans Board of Trade, Limited

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · Filed October 9, 2019

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

DR. CARROL I. FISCHER, JR. * NO. 2019-CA-0337

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

CHAD ROGERS, CUVEE, * FOURTH CIRCUIT
L.L.C., DECATUR HOTELS,
LLC AND THE NEW * STATE OF LOUISIANA
ORLEANS BOARD OF TRADE,
LIMITED *

*
*******

I join in the majority’s opinion but write separately to emphasize the split in

the Circuits. While I recognize that dismissal of a case because of abandonment is

a harsh remedy which should be employed sparingly, there is clearly a dispute

amongst the courts as to whether continuing a trial without date constitutes a step

in the prosecution of the case pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 561. See, e.g., Taylor v.

Dash Equipment & Supplies, Inc., 2018-0335, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 258

So.3d 909, 916 (unopposed motion to continue is not a step because it did not

request the court to set a new trial date; “indefinite continuance is not intended to

hasten the matter to judgment”); Bourg v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, 2012-0829, pp.

5-6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 45, 49 (“continuing the hearing on a

motion for summary judgment, without date, does not further the suit towards

judgment, and thus does not qualify as a ‘step’ to interrupt the accrual of the

abandonment period”); and Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc., 2009-0410, p. 6

(La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09), 22 So.3d 989, 994 (“[a] joint motion to continue without

date or indefinitely is not considered a step in the prosecution of a case, since by its

very nature, an indefinite continuance is not intended to hasten the matter to

judgment”).