Demechie Peterson v. Victor C. Rochon, Usaa Insurance Company, Danielle Little and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company

DEMECHIE PETERSON * NO. 2021-CA-0365

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
VICTOR C. ROCHON, USAA *
INSURANCE COMPANY, FOURTH CIRCUIT
DANIELLE LITTLE AND *
STATE FARM MUTUAL STATE OF LOUISIANA
INSURANCE COMPANY *******

APPEAL FROM
FIRST CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS
NO. 2018-05851-F, SECTION “B”
Honorable Marissa A. Hutabarat,
******
Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano
******
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge
Dale N. Atkins)

Rudy Willie Gorrell, Jr.
1215 Prytania Street, Suite 223
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Michele Trowbridge Barreca
Matthew E. Simmons
PORTEOUS HAINKEL & JOHNSON, L.L.P.
704 Carondelet Street
New Orleans, LA 70130

Peter J. Wanek
Lindsay G. Faulkner
Michael L. Ballero
WANEK KIRSCH DAVIES
1340 Poydras Street, Suite 2000
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED

DECEMBER 1, 2021

JCL This is an appeal of a judgment of the First City Court of the City of New
DLD
DNA Orleans (“First City Court”) dismissing plaintiff/appellant’s claims based on his
A
failure to appear in court on the day of trial. For the following reasons, we vacate

and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This suit arises from an accident, which occurred on April 22, 2018. The

plaintiff, Demechie Peterson (“Plaintiff”), alleges he sustained injuries when the

vehicle, which he was driving, was rear-ended by the vehicle operated by Danielle

Little (“Little”) after the Little vehicle had been rear-ended by the vehicle operated

by Victoria Rochon1 (“Rochon”). Plaintiff filed a personal injury suit in First City

Court relative to the accident, naming as defendants: Little; State Farm Mutual

Insurance Company (“State Farm”), as the liability insurer of Little; Rochon; and

USAA Insurance Company, as the liability insurer of Rochon. State Farm and

Little each filed an answer, and Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance

Company (“Garrison”) filed an answer as the liability insurer of Rochon.2

1
We note that the caption of the Petition lists “Victor C. Rochon” as a defendant, while the text
of the petition names “Victoria Rochon” as a defendant.
2
The record does not reflect that service of the Petition was made on Rochon.

1

On August 30, 2019, Garrison moved to set the case for trial. The trial court

set the case for trial on March 23, 2020. On February 28, 2020, Garrison filed a

consent motion to continue trial and set a status conference for the purpose of

selecting a new trial date. The trial court continued the March 23, 2020 trial date

and set the matter for a status conference on May 6, 2020 in order for the parties to

select a new trial date. The May 6, 2020 status conference did not go forward, as

the court was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 26, 2020, Garrison

filed a motion to reset status conference, and by order issued on June 29, 2020, the

trial court set a telephone status conference on July 28, 2020 for the purpose of

selecting a trial date. At the conference conducted by telephone on July 28, 2020,

trial was set for November 4, 2020.

Plaintiff failed to appear for trial on November 4, 2020. His attorney

explained he was unable to attend trial because he was incarcerated. After a

discussion was conducted in chambers regarding Plaintiff’s absence, State Farm

and Little moved for involuntary dismissal with prejudice under La. C.C.P. art.

1672 based on Plaintiff’s failure to appear for trial.

In support of the motion for involuntary dismissal, State Farm and Little

argued that Plaintiff’s incarceration was discussed at the July 28, 2020 status

conference when the November 4, 2020 trial date was selected and that the parties

were aware that Plaintiff would likely remain incarcerated on the trial date. They

explained that Plaintiff had pled guilty to “multiple felonies” in Jefferson Parish on

March 5, 2020, resulting in a five year sentence without parole. State Farm and

Little introduced as Exhibit “A” a certified copy of a minute entry from the 24th

Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson dated March 5, 2020, which

reflected that Plaintiff pled guilty on that date to possession of a firearm by a

2

convicted felon and simple escape and was sentenced on the weapons count to five

years without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence and on the

simple escape count to two years, with the sentences to be served consecutively.

Finally, State Farm and Little argued that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to secure

Plaintiff’s appearance at trial by writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum and further

failed to file a written motion to continue the trial, as required by the court rules of

First City Court.3 Garrison likewise moved for involuntary dismissal based on

Plaintiff’s failure to appear in court for trial.

Plaintiff’s counsel responded that he could not prepare a writ of habeas

corpus due to the power outage caused by Hurricane Zeta, which made landfall on

the Louisiana coast on October 28, 2020, seven days prior to the trial date. He then

orally moved for a continuance.

The trial court granted the motion for involuntary dismissal, dismissed

Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, and assessed Plaintiff with costs and reasonable

attorney’s fees. State Farm and Little submitted a judgment with the amounts of

costs and attorney’s fees left blank, which the trial judge signed. The judge

instructed defense counsel to submit a breakdown of the costs and fees incurred,

and upon receipt of this information, the judge filled in the judgment with the

amounts of costs and attorney’s fees awarded.

Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on December 15, 2020. The motion for

new trial asserted that the trial court erred in granting the motion for involuntary

dismissal. At the close of the hearing conducted on March 23, 2021, the trial court

3
Rule 15 of the Rules of First City Court provides in pertinent part: “If counsel is unable, for any
reason, to try the case on the day fixed, he SHALL notify opposing counsel AND file a written
motion for continuance giving his reasons for being unable to try said case, and present it to the
Judge for his signature.” (Emphasis in original).

3

denied the motion for new trial. Plaintiff now appeals the judgments dismissing his

claims and denying his motion for new trial.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred by (1) granting defendants’ motion

for involuntary dismissal, (2) awarding defendants attorney’s fees without

conducting a traversal hearing, and (3) denying Plaintiff’s motion for new trial to

set aside the involuntary dismissal.

STANDARD OF REVIIEW

A decision to grant an involuntary dismissal is subject to the manifest

error and abuse of discretion standard of review. Brooks v. Tradesmen Int’l, Inc.,

03-1871, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/04), 883 So.2d 444, 446.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1672(A)(1) provides that “[a]

judgment dismissing an action shall be rendered upon application of any party,

when the plaintiff fails to appear on the day set for trial.” When a plaintiff does fail

to appear for trial, the court must determine whether the dismissal is to be with or

without prejudice. La. C.C.P. art. 1672(A)(1); England v. Baird, 99-2093, p. 4 (La.

App. 1 Cir. 11/3/00), 772 So.2d 905, 907. However, a dismissal for failure to

appear is a harsh remedy and the court must also consider a broad range of less

severe alternatives prior to deciding on dismissal. England, 99-2093, p. 5, 72 So.2d

at 908. An important consideration before dismissal of a claim is “whether the

misconduct was by the attorney or the client, or both.” Zavala v. St. Joe Brick

Works, Inc., 04-0065, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/17/04), 897 So.2d 703, 705 (quoting

Benware v. Means, 99-1410, p. 9 (La. 1/19/00), 752 So.2d 841, 847). If the record

does not contain evidence of a plaintiff’s act of “willfulness, bad faith, or fault,” a

4

single failure of a plaintiff to appear may not be sufficient support for a dismissal

of the plaintiff’s claim, with prejudice. Zavala, 04-0065, pp. 3-4, 897 So.2d at 705

(quoting In re Med. Review Panel, 99-2088, p. 8 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/00), 775

So.2d 1214, 1218).

Moreover, the jurisprudence holds that a party represented by counsel at a

proceeding before the court is not considered absent. See La. C.C.P. art. 1672,

comment (g); Spencer v. Children’s Hosp., 432 So.2d 823, 824 (La. 1983);

Dickens v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 99-0698, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/23/00),

762 So.2d 1193, 1196; Kelly v. Kelly, 11-1932, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/13/12), 94

So.3d 179, 181. “The presence of the plaintiff in court is not essential in all cases.”

Kelly, 11-1932, p. 4, 94 So.3d at 182 (citing Spencer, 432 So.2d at 824). Implicit in

the requirement stated in La. C.C.P. art. 1672, that plaintiff appear for trial, is that

plaintiff be prepared and able to proceed with his case. Boyd v. Doe, unpub., 14-

1748, p. 11 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/18/15), 2015 WL 5514973, *6. Thus, the mere

appearance of plaintiff’s counsel without witnesses and obviously unable to

proceed in the event of denial of a request for continuance does not preclude

dismissal of the action. U.S. Mach. & Equip. Co. v. Kerschner Air Conditioning &

Heating Co., 342 So.2d 1278, 1281 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1977); Hebert v. C.F. Bean

Corp., 00-1029, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/25/01), 785 So.2d 1029, 1031; Brower v.

Quick Serv. Body Shop, 377 So.2d 878, 879 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1979).

From our review of the record herein, we find that dismissal of Plaintiff’s

action does not appear warranted. Plaintiff was not absent, since his appearance

was made through his counsel. Moreover, the trial court failed to inquire as to

Plaintiff’s counsel’s readiness to proceed with the trial despite Plaintiff’s absence.

We note that the record indicates that both defendant drivers, Little and Rochon,

5

were present in court on the day of trial. The trial court also failed to consider other

less severe alternatives, such as a contempt of court charge, or a dismissal without

prejudice. Importantly, there is no evidence to support a finding that Plaintiff’s

failure to appear at trial was an act of “willfulness, bad faith, or fault” sufficient to

justify a dismissal of his action with prejudice. Additionally, it appears from the

record that no prior continuances had been requested by Plaintiff. Under these

circumstances, we find that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice, was

an abuse of discretion. Based on this conclusion, we pretermit discussion of the

remaining assignments of error.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons assigned herein, the judgment of First City Court granting

the involuntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice is vacated, and the

matter is remanded for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED

6