Shawn Noell Holliday, Individually, And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Louisiana Office Of Motor Vehicles, Through Karen St. Germain, In Her Official Capacity As The Commissioner Of The Louisiana Office Of Motor Vehicles, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 04, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
SHAWN NOELL HOLLIDAY, INDIVIDUALLY,
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED
VS.
THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, THROUGH KAREN ST. GERMAIN,
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE LOUISIANA
OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ET AL.
No. 2024-CC-00909
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Liz
Murrill, in her Official Capacity as Attorney General - Applicant
Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th
Judicial District Court Number(s) 652347, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s)
2024 CW 0279;
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 04, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and would deny.
Hughes, J., dissents and would deny.
Griffin, J., dissents and would deny.
SJC
JTK
WJC
JBM
09/04/2024 "See News Release 040 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2024-CC-00909
S
HAWN NOELL HOLLIDAY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
V
S.
T
HE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THROUGH KAREN ST.
GERMAIN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF
THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THE LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THROUGH
JEFF LANDRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THROUGH
KIMBERLY L. ROBINSON, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF
THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE LOUISIANA OFFICE
OF DEBT RECOVERY, A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOUR BETWEEN THE
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND THE LOUISIANA
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THROUGH KIMBERLY L. ROBINSON,
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND JEFF LANDRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS THE LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
On S
upervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge
P
ER CURIAM
Pla
intiffs filed a class action petition for damages against various state
entities, including th e Louisiana Attorney General (“AG”). The AG filed an
exception of no cause of action. At a hearing on May 8, 2017, the district court
sustained the exception and granted plaintiffs five days to file an amended petition.
On May 12, 2017, plaintiffs fax-filed their supplemental and amending
petition with the clerk of court. P laintiffs’ counsel asserts she mailed the original
document to the clerk’s office on May 15, 2017. However, the clerk of court’s
records indicate the original pleading was not stamped until May 24, 2017, outside
the seven-day window provided by La. R.S. 13:850.
Thereafter, the AG filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ action on the ground
they failed to amend their petition timely. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and
presented testimony from their counsel. According to plaintiffs’ counsel, she spoke
09/04/24

2

with unnamed employees of the clerk’s office on May 19, 2017 and these employees
confirmed receipt of the original document.
The district court denied the AG’s motion to dismiss, and the court of appeal
denied the AG’s request for supervisory relief. The AG now applies to this court
and seeks a stay of proceedings.
La. R.S. 13:850(B) provides, in pertinent part:

B. Within seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the
clerk of court receives the facsimile filing, all of the
following shall be delivered to the clerk of court:

(1) The original document identical to the facsimile
filing in number of pages and in content of each page
including any attachments, exhibits, and orders. A
document not identical to the facsimile filing or which
includes pages not included in the facsimile filing shall not
be considered the original document. [emphasis added]

In Petit-Blanc v. Charles , 21 -0094 (La. 4/20/21), 313 So.3d 1245, we
explained that in order to establish delivery, a party must show the original document
was in the actual or constructive possession of the clerk of court within the seven-
day period:
As originally enacted La. R.S. 13:850(B) required that the
party filing the document “shall forward” the original
document and fees to the clerk within seven days of the
facsimile transmission. In Hunter v. Morton's Seafood
Rest. & Catering, 08-1667 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 152, 156,
we interpreted the term “forward” to mean the litigant
must only send or transmit the document to the clerk,
explaining “[t]he definition of this term does not include
the concept of ‘delivery’ or ‘receipt.’ ”

In 2016, the legislature amended La. R.S. 13:850(B) by
Acts 2016, No. 109, eff. August 1, 2016. As currently
drafted, the statute provides the party shall “deliver”
the original document to the clerk within seven days of
the facsimile transmission. Black's Law Dictionary
(6th Ed. 1990) defines “delivery” as “[t]he act by which
the res or substance thereof is placed within the actual
or constructive possession or control of another.”
Citing this definition, the court of appeal in Clark v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., 18-0052 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/31/18), 259
So.3d 516, held a petition was “delivered” to the clerk of

3

court when a clerk's office employee signed a green card
for plaintiff's certified mail. [emphasis added].

In finding the petition in that case was not filed timely, we stated:
In the present case, plaintiff asserts she sent her original
document to the clerk's office sometime prior to the
November 22, 2019, but she cannot establish the petition
was placed in the actual or constructive possession of the
clerk's office at any time prior to November 25, 2019.
Considering the 2016 amendment to the statute, we
must conclude merely transmitting an original
document within the deadline is insufficient; rather,
the litigant must establish the document was delivered
to the clerk within the deadline. Plaintiff has not done
so here. [emphasis added].

The facts of the instant case are virtually identical to Petit -Blanc. Although
plaintiffs faxed their petition timely, they cannot establish the original document was
placed in the actual or constructive possession of the clerk's office at any time prior
May 24, 2017. The only evidence offered by plaintiffs is self-serving testimony from
their counsel citing a purported conversation with unnamed employees of the clerk’s
office. Plaintiffs produced no objective evidence, such as a green card or court
records, which would establish the date of receipt by the clerk’s office, nor did they
call any clerk’s office employees as witnesses. In the absence of any evidence
establishing timely delivery, we must find that the filing has “ no force or effect ”
under La. R.S. 13:850(C).

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgment of the district court is reversed, and the motion to dismiss filed by the
Louisiana Attorney General is granted. The request for stay is denied as moot. The
case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.