Russell J. Sanders v. Hackbarth Delivery Service, Inc. A Nd Tamara Lathan

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 17, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
RUSSELL J. SANDERS
VS.
HACKBARTH DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.
A
ND TAMARA LATHAN
No. 2024-CC-00524
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN
RE: Russell J. Sanders - Applicant Plaintiff; Russell's Seasoning Blends, LLC -
Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 695138, Court of Appeal, First Circuit,
Number(s) 2024 CW 0293;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 17, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Genovese, J., concurs in the result.
Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons,
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
PDG
05/17/2024 "See News Release 024 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-CC-00524
RUSSELL J. SANDERS
VS.
HACKBARTH DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. AND TAMARA LATHAN
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit,
Parish of East Baton Rouge
PER CURIAM
Writ granted; stay lifted. The interpretation given La. C.C.P. art. 1313(A)(4)
by the court of appeal’s majority erroneously places a burden of proof of receipt of
an electronically transmitted pleading on the serving party. A plain reading of t he
statute establishes there is a presumption transmission is successful and the burden
is on the party being served to rebut that presumption or timely notify the serving
party of nonreceipt. Cf. Clark v. Bridges, 23-0237, pp. 7-10 (La. 2/22/23), 356 So.
3d 990, 994-96 (observing a distinction between “transmitted” and “delivered” for
purposes of timely filing tax returns). Problematic is that the transmitting party has
no way of knowing a pleading was received unless personally verified and a
receiving party has no way of knowing whether a pleading was intended to be sent
in the first instance . Clarification of the statute addresses itself to the legislature.
However, we agree with Judges Chutz and Greene that, under the unique facts of
this case , the t rial court was within its discretion to grant a continuance for
consideration of the opposition.
COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED; REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT
05/17/24