Lois Kirk W/O/A Lawrence Kirk v. Ursin T. Stafford, Md

LOIS KIRK W/O/A * NO. 2021-C-0056
LAWRENCE KIRK
*
VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL
*
URSIN T. STAFFORD, MD, ET FOURTH CIRCUIT
AL *
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2020-06820, DIVISION “14/F”
Honorable Jennifer M Medley,
******
Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano
******
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge
Tiffany G. Chase)

T. Carey Wicker, III
Vincent E. Odom
Michael S. Sepcich
CAPITELLI AND WICKER
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2950
New Orleans, LA 70163

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/RELATORS

Richard S. Crisler
Benjamin J. Biller
BRADLEY MURCHISON KELLY & SHEA LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
New Orleans, LA 70163

Lorraine P. McInnis
BERRIGAN LITCHFIELD, LLC
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4204
New Orleans, LA 70170-4204

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

WRIT GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED
MAY 12, 2021

JCL This is a medical malpractice case. Plaintiffs/relators, Lois Kirk and
TGC
DLD Lawrence Kirk (collectively, the “Kirks” or “Relators”) seek review of the January

21, 2021 judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans (“District

Court”), which granted exceptions of improper venue and ordered this case

transferred to the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany. In

granting the exceptions, the District Court found Relators’ motion for voluntary

dismissal moot. For the reasons that follow, we grant the writ, vacate the judgment,

and remand this matter to the District Court to hold a contradictory hearing and

rule on Relators’ motion for voluntary dismissal.

This litigation arises from Lois Kirk’s medical treatment at Slidell Memorial

Hospital (the “Hospital”) on or about March 26, 2018, wherein defendant

healthcare providers allegedly failed to recognize that the EKG taken on Lois Kirk

was reflective of an acute myocardial infarction (otherwise known as a “heart

attack”). Relators allege that, as a result of defendants’ medical negligence in their

care and treatment of Lois Kirk, she suffered severe injuries including hypoxic

brain injury and the amputation of a limb.

On August 13, 2020, Relators filed a post-medical review panel lawsuit in

the District Court against defendants/respondents, Ursin T. Stafford, MD (“Dr.

Stafford”), Archie C. Tatford, MD (“Dr. Tatford”), Anantha Chentha, MD (“Dr.

Chentha”), Apogee Medical Group, Louisiana, Inc. (“AMG”) (collectively

“Respondents”).1 The Kirks also named as defendants Team Health Holdings, Inc.

(“Team Health”), Allyson Armendi Jarvis, MD (“Dr. Jarvis”), as well as the State

of Louisiana Through The Board Of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and

Agricultural and Mechanical College, and LSU Health Sciences Center-New

Orleans (the “State Defendants”), alleging that Dr. Jarvis was an employee, agent

or affiliate of the State Defendants at the time of the medical treatment. The

petition alleged that Dr. Jarvis was a resident of Orleans Parish. Relators did not

name the Hospital as a defendant.

On August 20, 2020, Relators filed a second nearly identical lawsuit in

Jefferson Parish, where they alleged that Drs. Stafford and Tatford were domiciled,

but requested that service on all defendants be withheld at that time.2

On October 30, 2020, Drs. Stafford and Tatford filed in the District Court an

exception of improper venue, arguing that venue was improper in Orleans Parish

because no defendant was domiciled there. They annexed to their exception an

affidavit from Dr. Jarvis, attesting that she had sold her house, moved out-of-state,

and was no longer a resident of Orleans Parish when the action was filed. They

1
We refer in this opinion to only Dr. Stafford, Dr. Tatford, Dr. Chentha, and AMG as
Respondents, as they have filed responses to the writ application herein. As discussed below,
Drs. Stafford and Tatford jointly filed an exception of improper venue, while Dr. Chentha and
AMG jointly filed a separate exception adopting Drs. Stafford and Tatford’s arguments.
2
Relators submit that “out of a further abundance of caution, [they] also filed the identical
lawsuit against the same Defendants in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East
Baton Rouge on the last day of the prescriptive period and withheld service because venue would
be appropriate there as to any ‘State’ Defendants.” No further showing concerning this lawsuit
was made to this Court.
2

also claimed that the mandatory venue provisions of La. R.S. 13:5104(A) applied

with respect to the claims against the State Defendants as Dr. Jarvis’ alleged

employer and precluded venue in Orleans Parish.3 They argued that the District

Court should transfer the action to St. Tammany Parish, where the alleged

malpractice took place at the Hospital, and which they submitted was a court of

proper venue.

On November 2, 2020, Relators filed in the District Court an ex parte

motion for voluntary partial dismissal without prejudice as to Relators’ claims

against Dr. Jarvis, Team Health, Dr. Chentha, AMG, and the State Defendants.

Relators reserved their rights against Drs. Stafford and Tatford. Later the same day,

in the District Court, Dr. Chentha and AMG filed an exception of improper venue

in Orleans Parish, adopting the exception filed by Drs. Stafford and Tatford. Also,

on November 2, 2020, Relators requested service in the Jefferson Parish lawsuit on

Dr. Stafford, Dr. Tatford, Dr. Chentha, AMG, and Team Health.

On November 10, 2020, Relators filed a motion for voluntary dismissal

without prejudice as to their claims against Drs. Stafford and Tatford “so that

[Relators] may pursue this matter in the correct venue” – specifically, Relators’

pending lawsuit filed in Jefferson Parish. Relators represented that Drs. Stafford

and Tatford opposed voluntary dismissal in Orleans Parish because they sought

transfer of the case to St. Tammany Parish. Relators requested that their motion be

set for contradictory hearing at the same time as all Respondents’ exceptions of

3
Under La. R.S. 13:5104(A), all lawsuits filed against “state of Louisiana or any state agency or
against an officer or employee of the state or state agency for conduct arising out of the
discharge of his official duties or within the course and scope of his employment shall be
instituted before the district court of the judicial district in which the state capitol is located or in
the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises.” Drs.
Stafford and Tatford contended in a reply in support of their exception, however, that venue in
East Baton Rouge Parish was no longer proper pursuant to the dismissal of State Defendants.
3

improper venue. On the same day, rules to show cause issued, setting contradictory

hearings on January 15, 2021 on all Respondents’ exceptions and Relators’ motion

for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

On November 19, 2020, the duty judge in the District Court granted

Relators’ ex parte motion for voluntary partial dismissal without prejudice,

dismissing Relators’ claims against Dr. Jarvis, Team Health, Dr. Chentha, AMG,

and the State Defendants, reserving only Relators’ claims against Drs. Stafford and

Tatford.

On January 7, 2021, Relators filed a memorandum in opposition to the

exceptions of improper venue. Relators conceded that venue was improper in

Orleans Parish but submitted that the exceptions should be denied as moot because

Relators had moved to dismiss the Orleans Parish action and/or in the alternative

that should the court rule on the merits, the suit should be transferred to Jefferson

Parish where the other medical malpractice action brought by Relators was

pending.

On January 15, 2021, a contradictory hearing was held in the District Court.

According to Drs. Stafford and Tatford, none of the parties introduced any

evidence at the hearing, and the writ application reflects that most of the hearing

was not transcribed due to technical difficulties with Zoom videoconferencing. The

District Court rendered judgment on January 21, 2021 granting the exceptions,

transferring the case to St. Tammany Parish, and finding Relators’ motion for

voluntary dismissal moot. Relators’ application for supervisory writs followed.

No dispute remains that Orleans Parish is an improper venue for Relators’

medical malpractice action. The narrow issue presented is whether the District

4

Court abused its discretion in transferring the case to St. Tammany Parish while

failing to grant Relators’ motion for voluntary dismissal.

Venue presents a question of law, and appellate courts generally review the

grant of an exception of improper venue de novo. Blow v. OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co.,

16-0301, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/20/16), 193 So.3d 244, 248. Appellate courts

review, under an abuse of discretion standard, a district court’s decision to transfer

in the interest of justice, rather than dismiss, a lawsuit filed in an improper venue.

See Garrison v. St. Charles General Hosp., 02-1430, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir.

9/17/03), 857 So.2d 1092, 1096; Perniciaro v. McInnis, 16-0740, p. 6 (La. App. 5

Cir. 5/31/17), 222 So.3d 987, 992. Likewise, a district court’s ruling, which grants

or denies a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, after a defendant has

appeared, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Sizemore v. Reilly-Benton Co.,

Inc., 18-0826, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/6/19), 265 So.3d 41, 43 (citing Botanica

Prop. Partners, L.L.C. v. Hodges Const. Co., 04-1086, p. 6 (La. App. 5 Cir.

2/15/05), 897 So.2d 756, 759).

Transfer or dismissal of a lawsuit due to improper venue are addressed in

Articles 121 and 932 of the Code of Civil Procedure. “When an action is brought

in a court of improper venue, the court may dismiss the action, or in the interest of

justice transfer it to a court of proper venue.” La. C.C.P. art. 121. Similarly, Article

932(B) provides in part that “if an action has been brought in a court of improper

jurisdiction or venue, the court may transfer the action to a proper court in the

interest of justice.” La. C.C.P. art 932(B). Typically, transfer is found to be “in the

interest of justice” when it “prevents substantive rights being lost, without a

determination upon the merits, by becoming time-barred under prescription or

peremption despite having been filed and served timely albeit in the improper
5

venue.” Blow, 16-0301, pp. 21-22, 193 So.3d at 257 (quoting Garrison, 02-1430,

p. 3, 857 So.2d at 1094). Ordinarily, under such a scenario, transfer rather than

dismissal is favored unless a plaintiff knowingly files suit in an improper venue.

Garrison, 02-1430, p. 3, 857 So.2d at 1094. Neither of these factors are present

here. Nothing before this Court indicates that Relators would lose substantive

rights (under prescription or otherwise) if their Orleans Parish lawsuit is dismissed,

as they filed a nearly identical Jefferson Parish lawsuit, which remains pending. No

suggestion is made that Relators knew Orleans Parish was an improper venue at

the time they filed suit there.

Voluntary dismissals are provided for in La. C.C.P. art. 1671, which states:

A judgment dismissing an action without prejudice shall
be rendered upon application of the plaintiff and upon his
payment of all costs, if the application is made prior to
any appearance of record by the defendant. If the
application is made after such appearance, the court may
refuse to grant the judgment of dismissal except with
prejudice.

Once a defendant has made an appearance of record, as here,4 “the plaintiff’s

right to dismiss rests within the sound discretion of the court.” La. C.C.P. art. 1671,

comment (b). This Court observed that that Article 1671 does not grant a district

court “unbridled discretion” and recognized a jurisprudential rule that a district

court “cannot dismiss a suit without prejudice if substantive rights acquired by the

defendant would thereby be lost or if the dismissal would deprive the defendant of

a just defense.” Sizemore, 18-0826, p. 6, 265 So.3d at 44-45 (quoting Oliver v.

Davis, 95-1841, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/12/96), 679 So.2d 462, 464)(other citations

4
For the purposes of Article 1671, “Appearance of record includes filing a pleading, appearing
at a hearing, and formally enrolling as counsel of record.” La. C.C.P. art. 1671, 1997 comment.
“The pleadings allowed in civil actions … shall be in writing and shall consist of petitions,
exceptions, written motions, and answers.…” La. C.C.P. art. 852.
6

and footnote omitted). Louisiana courts have rejected the argument that a

defendant “lost a substantial right and/or just defense” to litigate venue or lis

pendens due to a voluntary dismissal and remarked that the “problem of where the

suit is to be heard [] is clearly a procedural question rather than a substantive one.”

Martinez v. Dow Chem. Co., 97-0289, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/30/97), 700 So.2d

1096, 1098. This Court also observed that “[a]s procedural rules, the provisions

governing venue do not create substantive rights.” Blow, 16-0301, p. 19, 193 So.3d

at 256 (citing American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453, 114 S.Ct. 981,

127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994). “Moreover, the mere fact that the plaintiff intends to

institute, or in fact institutes, another suit on the same cause of action is not a

sufficient ground for a denial of his or her motion to discontinue an action.”

Sizemore, 18-0826, p. 7, 265 So.3d at 45 (quotation and other citations omitted).

We have not located in our jurisprudence any bright line rule requiring a

court to first rule on a motion for voluntary dismissal before transferring a case to a

proper venue. Nevertheless, we find under the particular posture of this matter that

the District Court abused its discretion in failing to address whether Relators were

entitled to voluntarily dismiss their claims against Drs. Stafford and Tatford, the

only two remaining defendants in Orleans Parish. In doing so, and in ruling on

what it perceived to be the most convenient venue (the parish where the alleged

malpractice took place), the District Court overlooked that only the claims against

Dr. Stafford and Tatford remained and that all other defendants were dismissed. As

a result of this ruling, the only claims transferred to St. Tammany Parish are those

against Drs. Stafford and Tatford, while Relators’ lawsuit against Drs. Stafford and

Tatford and the other named defendants remains pending in Jefferson Parish.

7

Further compounding the issue, as Drs. Stafford and Tatford concede, no

evidence was introduced at the hearing in support of the exceptions. Relators

confessed that Orleans Parish was no longer a proper venue, but the District Court

did not properly consider evidence from which to determine a proper venue for

transfer in the interest of justice. “Evidence not properly and officially offered and

introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically placed in the record.”

Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 07-2143, p. 6 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84, 88;

see also Draughn v. Thacker, 14-0216, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/25/14), 165

So.3d 1010, 1012-13.

Moreover, we find no basis on which the District Court had authority to act

on exceptions filed by the dismissed parties, Dr. Chentha and AMG. We find no

showing that Dr. Chentha or AMG sought appellate review or took any measures

to set aside their dismissal in the District Court. Their exception was no longer

properly before the District Court at the time of the hearing. Due to their failure to

appeal, we do not address whether the voluntary dismissal of any other defendants

(including Dr. Chentha and AMG) was proper.

Viewing these considerations together, we find that the District Court abused

its discretion by transferring the case and finding the motion for voluntary

dismissal moot. The particular circumstances here warrant that the District Court

first determine, after a contradictory hearing, whether voluntary dismissal would

deprive Drs. Stafford and Tatford of substantive rights and/or a just defense.

Thereafter, if dismissal is not granted, Drs. Stafford and Tatford may, if they

desire, re-urge their arguments on transfer to a proper venue in the interest of

justice in an evidentiary hearing on their exception.

8

We, therefore, grant the writ, vacate the January 21, 2021 judgment, and

remand this matter to the District Court to hold a contradictory hearing and rule on

Relators’ motion for voluntary dismissal, before addressing the exception of

improper venue.

WRIT GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED

9