Kimberly Dufrene v. Charles T. Coleman, DDS, DMD, and Charles T. Coleman, A Professional Dental Corporation

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

KIMBERLY DUFRENE NO. 2021 CW 1217

VERSUS

CHARLES T. COLEMAN, DDS,

DMD, AND CHARLES T. COLEMAN,
FEB 18 2022.
A PROFESSIONAL DENTAL
CORPORATION

In Re: Charles T. Coleman, DMD, and Charles T. Coleman, DMD,

A Professional Dental Corporation, applying for

supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court,
Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2020- 11134.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article

966( B) ( 2) expressly states, "[ a] ny opposition to the motion [ for

summary judgment] and all documents in support of the opposition
shall be filed and served in accordance with Article 1313 not

less than fifteen days prior to
hearing on the motion." The
the
deadline established in Article 966( B)( 2) is mandatory, and the
district court has no discretion to extend the time by which a
party must file an opposition. Auricchio v. Harriston, 2020-
01167 ( La. 10/ 10/ 21), So. 3d 2021 WL 5865496 at * 1.
Herein, the district court erred in considering
plaintiff/ respondent, Kimberly Dufrene' s, untimely filed
opposition to defendants/ relators, Charles T. Coleman, DDS, DMD,
and Charles T. Coleman, A Professional Dental Corporation' s,
Motion for
Summary Judgment. Dufrene filed her opposition seven

days prior to the summary judgment hearing, rather than at least
fifteen days before, as required by La. Code Civ. P. art.

966( B)( 2). As such, the district court' s August 11, 2021
judgment, denying defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is
vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court for a
ruling on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment without

consideration of plaintiff' s opposition. See Auricchio, 2021 WL
5865496 at * 3.

PMC
JEW
MRT

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY OLEA OF COURT
FOR THE COURT