Linda Jill Mahe v. Lcmc Health Holdings Llc D/b/a West Jefferson Medical Center, Culicchia Neurological Center, Llc, K. David Khoobehi, M.D. And Bridgepoint Continuing Care Center

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 14, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
LINDA JILL MAHE
VS.
LCMC HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A WEST
JEFFERSON MEDICAL CENTER, CULICCHIA
NEUROLOGICAL CENTER, LLC, K. DAVID
KHOOBEHI, M.D. AND BRIDGEPOINT
CONTINUING CARE CENTER
No. 2023-CC-00025
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: BridgePoint Healthcare Louisiana, LLC d/b/a BridgePoint Continuing Care
Hospital - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans
Civil, Civil District Court Number(s) 2021-7304, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,
Number(s) 2022-C-0718;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 14, 2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
Griffin, J., would deny.
JTG
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
03/14/2023 "See News Release 013 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2023-CC-00025
L
INDA JILL MAHE
VS.
LCMC HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A WEST JEFFERSON MEDICAL
CENTER, CULICCHIA NEUROLOGICAL CENTER, LLC, K. DAVID
KHOOBEHI, M.D. AND BRIDGEPOINT CONTINUING CARE CENTER
O
n Supervisory Writ to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil
PER CURIAM
Granted. The issue we are to decide in this summary judgment
proceeding is whether the trial court can grant a continuance of the matter, after
plaintiff failed to tim ely file her opposition within the mandated fifteen- day
time period set forth in La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(B)(2).
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966(C)(2) provides: “For good
cause shown, the court may order a continuance of the hearing.” In this case,
plaintiff failed to timely file her opposition within the fifteen -day time period
and sought a continuance of the hearing on defendant’s motion for summary
judgment the day before the hearing . Plaintiff’s excuse for not filing the
opposition earlier was that her expert was “out of town.” The trial court judge
then continued the matter stating he wanted to “have the substance” of the
opposition.1 The court of appeal denied writs without substantive reasons.
As we specifically stated in Auricch io v. Harriston , 2020-01167, p. 5
(La. 10/10/21), 332 So. 3d 660, 663, these time limits are mandatory. La. Code
Civ. P. art. 966(B)(2) states that “the opposition shall be filed and served in
1 In granting plaintiff’s continuance, the district court implicitly found good cause under La.
Code Civ. P. art. 966(C)(2).
03/14/23

2

accordance with Article 1313 not less than fifteen days prior to the hearing on
the motion.” (emphasis supplied). A continuance under La. Code C iv. P. art.
966(C)(2) can not serve as a pr etext to circumvent the deadlines set forth in La.
C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).2
The plaintiff argued the fact that her expert was out of town constituted “good
cause” for a continuance, but she failed to move for a continuance prior to the
expiration of the fifteen-day deadline. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s excuse
does not constitute good cause.
As a result, the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’ s motion for a
continuance in order to consider an untimely filed opposition; and, the
appellate court erred in denying writs in this matter. Accordingly , we reverse
the lower courts, deny the continuance, and remand the matter to the trial court
to conduct a hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment without
consideration of plaintiff’s untimely filed opposition.

2 Notably, there have been substantive revisions to La. Code Civ. P. art. 966. However, the long-
held tene t that good cause does not exist when a continuance is granted solely to allow the
consideration of untimely filed pleadings or other summary judgment evidence remains true. See
e.g. Newsome v. Homer Memorial Med. Center, 2010-0564 (La. 4/9/10), 32 So.3d 800 (plaintiff
failed to establish good cause for continuing the summary judgment hearing solely for the purpose
of considering an untimely affidavit); and Sims v. Hawkins-Sheppard, 2011-0678 (La. 7/1/11), 65
So.3d 154 (plaintiff failed to show good cause for a continuance to consider an untimely affidavit
due to a three-day holiday and the medical expert being on vacation).