Margaret Patricia Landry Langlinais And Mary Landry Blackstock v. Union Oil Company Of California, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 14, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
MARGARET PATRICIA LANDRY
LANGLINAIS AND MARY LANDRY
BLACKSTOCK
VS.
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, ET
AL.
No.2020-CC-00229
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Hilcorp Energy Company - Applicant Defendant; Texas Petroleum
Investment Company - Applicant Defendant; Union Oil Company of California -
Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Vermilion, 15th
Judicial District Court Number(s) 104963, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit,
Number(s) CW 19-00794;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 14, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, J., would grant docket.
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Justice Crichton.
Genovese, J., recused.
BJJ
JLW
JDH
SJC
WJC
JHB
05/14/2020 "See News Release 017 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

05/14/20
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2020-CC-0229
MARGARET PATRICIA LANDRY LANGLINAIS
AND MARY LANDRY BLACKSTOCK
V.
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT,
PARISH OF VERMILLION
PER CURIAM*
In this matter, defendants seek review of a judgment of the court of appeal
which reversed the judgment of the district court denying plaintiffs’ motion to recuse
Judge Marilyn Castle. Pretermitting the merits of the recusal motion, we find the
motion was untimely.
Timeliness of a motion to recuse is governed by La. Code Civ. P. art. 154,
which provides, in pertinent part, “[t]his motion shall be filed prior to trial or hearing
unless the party discovers the facts constituting the ground for recusation thereafter,
in which event it shall be filed immediately after these facts are discovered, but prior
to judgment.” In Radcliffe 10, LLC v. Zip Tube Sys. of Louisiana , 2006-0128 (La.
11/3/06), 942 So.2d 1071, 1074, we explained, “[t]he clear intent of the statute is to
allow the motion to recuse when the party discovers facts constituting grounds for
recusal.”
In the instant case, the sole basis for plaintiffs’ motion to recuse was a
campaign advertisement which was published in 2016 by the Committee to Elect
Judge Marilyn Castle and mentioned plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel admit
* Genovese, J. recused.

they were aware of this advertisement in April 2018, when they first filed their suit
and it was randomly allotted to Judge Castle, but they did not seek her recusal at that
time. Plaintiffs’ counsel further participated in a hearing on exceptions before Judge
Castle in January 2019, but again did not file a motion to recuse. Plaintiffs’ motion
to recuse was not filed until June 28, 2019, over a year after suit was filed, and nearly
three years after the advertisement in question was published.
Under these circumstances, the district court hearing the motion to recuse
properly denied the motion on timeliness grounds. The court of appeal erred in
reversing this judgment.
Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is
reversed, and the judgment of the district court denying the motion to recuse Judge
Marilyn Castle is reinstated. The case is remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.
2