Pamela Carrie v. Southern University At New Orleans, The Board Of Southern University Agricultural And Mechanical College, On Behalf Of Southern University At New Orleans, The Southern University System, And Southern University Agricultural And Mecha

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 12, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
PAMELA CARRIE
VS.
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AT NEW
ORLEANS, THE BOARD OF SOUTHERN
UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL AND
MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ON BEHALF OF
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AT NEW
ORLEANS, THE SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM, AND SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL
COLLEGE
No. 2024-CC-00060
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut - Applicant Other; Lamar
Contractors, LLC - Applicant Other; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of
Orleans Civil, Orleans Civil District Court Number(s) 2017-03515, Court of Appeal,
Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2023-C-0737;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 12, 2024
Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.
Crain, J., concurs.
Griffin, J., recused.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
JBM
03/12/2024 "See News Release 011 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2024-CC-00060
PAM
ELA CARRIE
VS.
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AT NEW ORLEANS, THE BOARD OF
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL
COLLEGE, ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AT NEW
ORLEANS, THE SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, AND SOUTHERN
UNIVERSITY AGRICUTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE
PER CURIAM1
Gr
anted in part. Because plaintiff failed to pay the required service fees, her
initial request for service of her supplemental petition against r elators, Lamar
Contractors, LLC and The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, was not
proper. See Jenkins v. Larpenter, 04-0318 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 906 So.2d 656,
659, writ denied, 05-1078 (La. 6/17/05), 904 So.2d 711 (“[w]e find that a request for
service without payment of required fees, or without leave of court excusing such
payment because of pauper status, simply is no proper request at all.”).
2 Plaintiff
did not make a proper request for service until more than ninety days after the
supplemental petition was filed, in violation of La. Code Civ. P. art. 1201(C).
1 Griffin, J. recused.
2 We acknowledge the court in Walker v. GoAuto Ins. Co., 20-0331 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/10/21), 323
So.3d 918, reached a seemingly different result ; however, we find Walker is factually
distinguishable. Walker dealt with a factual circumstance where the petitioner sought pauper
status and after being denied such status, then remitted the amounts due to e ffect service to the
Clerk of Court as requested. However, the Clerk of Court thereafter failed to inform petitioner
that the original amount was insufficient, and that the Sheriff’s office was holding service until
further payment. After contacting the Clerk of Court for a status update on service, and after being
informed of the insufficiency, petitioner immediately paid the additional amounts for service.
Service was then made but it was done so after the applicable ninety -day period had lapsed. The
trial court subsequently granted defendant’s exception of insufficiency of service of process. The
Walker court reversed and specifically explained that unlike Jenkins , the plaintiff in Walker
“timely forwarded payment to the Clerk of Court after receiving notice of the denial of his request
to proceed in forma pauperis.” Walker, 323 So. 3d at 921. These facts where the error was clearly
attributable to the Clerk of Court differ with those in the instant case where the plaintiff did not
timely forward the payment necessary to effect service on defendants. Therefore, the facts of the
instant case are more analogous to Jenkins, in which the fees were not paid.
03/12/24

2

Accordingly, the writ is granted in part, and judgment is rendered in favor of
relators dismissing plaintiffs’ supplemental petition against them without prejudice
pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 1672(C).
In all other respects, the writ is denied. See Bordelon v. Med. Center of Baton
Rouge, 2003-0202 (La. 10/21/03), 871 So. 2d 1075.