Danieka Petit-blanc v. Quanisha R. Charles And State Farm Mutual Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 20, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
DANIEKA PETIT-BLANC
VS.
QUANISHA R. CHARLES AND STATE FARM
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
No.2021-CC-00094
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Quanisha R. Charles - Applicant Defendant; State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish
of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 187520, 1st Circuit Court of
Appeal, Number(s) 2020 CW 0950;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 20, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents.
Griffin, J., dissents.
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
04/20/2021 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

04/20/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2021-CC-00094
DANI
EKA PETIT-BLANC
VS.
QUANISHA R. CHARLES AND STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY
O
n Supervisory Writ to the 32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne
PE
R CURIAM
T
his case arises from an automobile accident which occurred on November
18, 2018. On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed a petition for damages with the
clerk of court through facsimile transmission. The clerk of court received plaintiff’s
original petition and fee on Monday, November 25, 2019.1
Subsequently, defendants filed a peremptory exception raising the objection
of prescription. Defendants argued plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements
of the facsimile filing statute, La. R.S. 13:850, and the petition therefore failed to
interrupt prescription. The district court denied the exception, and the court of
1 The petition is actually stamped “November 26, 2019.” However, the date was late changed by
hand to “November 25, 2019.” At the hearing, all parties stipulated the filing was actually received
by the clerk’s office on November 25, 2019 and the November 26, 2019 date was in error.

appeal denied defendants’ application for supervisory writs. Defendants’
application to this court followed.
Subsection B of La. R.S. 1 3:850 provides that when a document is filed by
facsimile transmission, the original document and fees “shall be delivered to the
clerk of court” within seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the clerk of court
receives the facsimile filing. In this case, plaintiff submitted her facsimile filing on
November 13, 2019, making the seventh day from that date Friday, November 22,
2019. Defendants point out plaintiff’s original document was stamped by the clerk’s
office on Monday, November 25, 2019, demonstrating it was delivered outside of
the seven-day period.
Plaintiff does not dispute her original document was stamped as received by
the clerk on November 25, 2019. However, she maintains her original document
was mailed to the clerk on November 14, 2019 and must have been delivered to the
clerk’s post office box sometime prior November 25, 2019.
At the hearing on defendants’ exception, a representative of the clerk’s office
testified that mail delivered to its post office box after 11:00 a.m. on a Friday would
not be picked up until the following Monday . Nonetheless, the representative
admitted she could not say if the document in this case had been received on any day
before November 25, 2019.

As originally enacted La. R.S. 13:850(B) required that the party filing the
document “shall forward” the original document and fees to the clerk within seven
days of the facsimile transmission. In Hunter v. Morton’s Seafood Rest & Catering,
08-1667 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 152, 156, we interpreted the term “forward” to mean
the litigant must only send or transmit the document to the clerk, explaining “[t]he
definition of this term does not include the concept of ‘delivery’ or ‘receipt.’”
In 2016, the legislature amended La. R.S. 13: 850(B) by Acts 2016, No. 109,
eff. August 1, 2016. As currently drafted, the statute provides the party shall
“deliver” the original document to the clerk within seven days of the facsimile
transmission. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) defines “delivery” as “[t]he
act by which the res or substance thereof is placed within the actual or constructive
possession or control of another.” Citing this definition, the court of appeal in Clark
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 18-0052 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/31/18), 259 So.3d 516, held a
petition was “delivered” to the clerk of court when a clerk’s office employee signed
a green card for plaintiff’s certified mail.
In the present case, plaintiff asserts she sent her original document to the
clerk’s office sometime prior to the November 22, 2019, but she cannot establish the
petition was placed in the actual or constructive possession of the clerk’s office at
any time prior to November 25, 2019. Considering the 2016 amendment to t he
statute, we must conclude merely transmitting an original document within the

deadline is insufficient; rather, the litigant must establish the document was
delivered to the clerk within the deadline. Plaintiff has not done so here.
Subsection C of La. R.S. 13:850 provides, “[i]f the filing party fails to comply
with any of the requirements of Subsection B of this Section, the facsimile filing
shall have no force or effect.” Because plaintiff failed to establish compliance with
the procedures set forth in La. R.S. 13:850(B) , her November 13, 2019 fascimile
filing is without force and effect and could not serve to interrupt the prescriptive
period. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying defendants’ exception.
DECREE
For the reasons assign ed, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgments of the lower courts are reversed . The peremptory exception raising the
objection of prescription filed by defendants, Quanisha R . Charles and State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., is maintained, and the action against defendants
is dismissed with prejudice.