Erin Wieber, Wife Of/and Scott Wieber, Individually And On Behalf Of Their Minor Children Mackenzie Wieber And Aiden Wieber And Brennan Wieber v. Acme Truck Line, Inc., Rico Lewis, Jr., Hudson Insurance Company, Abc Insurance Company And Xyz Insuranc

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 08, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
ERIN WIEBER, WIFE OF/AND SCOTT
WIEBER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN MACKENZIE
WIEBER AND AIDEN WIEBER AND
BRENNAN WIEBER
VS.
ACME TRUCK LINE, INC., RICO LEWIS, JR.,
HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, ABC
INSURANCE COMPANY AND XYZ
INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 2024-CC-00741
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Acme Truck Line, Inc. - Applicant Defendant; Hudson Insurance Company
- A
pplicant Defendant; Rico Lewis - Applicant Defendant; Navigators Specialty
Insurance Company - Applicant Defendant; AXIS Surplus Insurance Company -
Applicant Defendant; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA -
Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans Civil,
Orleans Civil District Court Number(s) 2019-04835, 2019-06571, Court of Appeal,
Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2024-C-0215;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 08, 2024
Writ application not considered. Not timely filed. See Per Curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and would consider the merits.
JDH
SJC
JTK
WJC
JBM
PDG
10/08/2024 "See News Release 045 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2024-CC-00741
E
RIN WIEBER, WIFE OF/AND SCOTT WIEBER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN MACKENZIE WIEBER
AND AIDEN WIEBER AND BRENNAN WIEBER
VS.
ACME TRUCK LINE, INC., RICO LEWIS, JR., HUDSON INSURANCE
COMPANY, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY AND XYZ INSURANCE
COMPANY
On S
upervisory Writ to the Orleans Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil
P
ER CURIAM
Pretermitting the merits, we find this application is untimely. The court of
appeal denied relators ’ writ application on May 10, 2024. Pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule X, §5, the deadline for relators to seek review in this court was Monday,
June 10, 2024. Relators filed their application by hand on Tuesday, June 11, 2024.
On June 21, 2024, relators filed a motion captioned “Motion for Leave to File
Applicants’ Supervisory Writ Application on Date Submitted, or in the Alternative,
Permit Application on the Date Hand Delivered.” In their motion, relators assert
their counsel attempted to electronically file the writ application on the evening of
June 10, 2024 but experienced technical difficulties as she attempted to reset her
password, unlock her account, and register a new account.
Supreme Court Rule XLII, §6(e) of the Electronic Filing rules, provides:
e) An e
lectronically filed document will be considered
timely filed if electronic filing is completed at any time
before 12:00 Midnight Central Time on or before the date
on which the document is due unless another specific time
is mandated by order, rule or statute. [emphasis added].
R
egardless of counsel’s intent, the court’s records establish no electronic
filing was completed prior to midnight on June 10, 2024. The application was not
filed until June 11, 2024, which is outside of the thirty-day period.
10/08/24

2

Accordingly, relators’ motion is denied. The application is not considered, as
it was not timely filed. Respondent’s motion to exceed page limits for the opposition
is denied as moot.