Pravita Prasad Nair Versus Paskaran A. "Paz" Nair

PRAVITA PRASAD NAIR NO. 23-C-390

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

PASKARAN A. "PAZ" NAIR COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 02, 2023

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE PRAVITA NAIR

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE DONALD L. FORET,
DIVISION "H", NUMBER 774-053

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

WRIT GRANTED; EXCEPTION RULING REVERSED;
REMANDED

Relator, Pravita Nair, seeks review of the trial court’s July 11, 2023 ruling that

sustained an exception of no cause of action filed by Respondent, Paskaran A. “Paz”

Nair.

On June 22, 2023, Paskaran filed a pleading entitled, “Peremptory Exceptions

of No Cause of Action and Motion to Dismiss with Incorporated Memorandum.” In

the pleading, Paskaran argued that Pravita’s April 20, 2023 objection to the Special

Master’s proces verbal1 was untimely pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4165(C). He asserted

that the objection was filed outside of the ten-day time delay; thus, Pravita had no

cause of action to file the objection. Paskaran sought dismissal of Pravita’s objection

with prejudice.

1
Bruce Miller was appointed as the Special Master in this matter. The report addressed child support,
reimbursement claims, and contempt.

A hearing on the exception was held on July 11, 2023. In a judgment dated

August 10, 2023, the trial court sustained Paskaran’s exception of no cause of action

by stating, “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

there be a judgment herein in favor of Paskaran A. ‘Paz’ Nair and against Pravita

Prasad Nair, ordering that Paskaran A. ‘Paz” Nair’s Peremptory Exception of No

Cause of action is hereby granted.”2 The judgment then denied Pravita’s objection

to the Special Master’s proces verbal.

In her writ application, Pravita alleges the trial court erred in its ruling because

she clearly stated a cause of action, which objected to the Special Master’s proces

verbal; and, the timeliness of a pleading is not a basis for an exception of no cause

of action. She maintains that she timely objected to the report within 10 days of

receiving the Special Master’s April 10, 2023 email. As such, she contends that

Paskaran’s exception and motion to dismiss should have been denied by the trial

court.3,4

The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question

whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the

petition. Grubbs v. Haven Custom Furnishings, Inc., 18-710 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/29/19), 274 So.3d 844, 848. For the purpose of determining the issues raised by

the exception, all facts pleaded in the petition must be accepted as true. Id.

After review, we find that the trial court legally erred in sustaining Paskaran’s

exception of no cause of action. There was no petition before the trial court for

consideration, where the factual allegations were to be accepted as true. An

exception of no cause of action was not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge

2
The judgment also denied Paskaran’s ex parte motion to adopt the Special Master’s report and set a December 6,
2023 hearing to determine whether the Special Master’s report is erroneous.
3
Pravita alleges as an assignment of error that “the trial court erroneously found that the receipt of the ‘cc’ copy of
the special master’s cover letter addressed to the Clerk of Court requesting filing of his enclosed ‘proces verbal,’
constituted adequate legal service of notice of the filing of a Special Master report in order to start the 10 day
deadline for the filing of objections to a special master’s report in accordance with LSA 13: 4165(B)(2)….”
However, the August 10, 2023 judgment does not express the finding asserted by Pravita.
4
Pravita further contends that the trial court erred in “dismissing” her objection to the Special Master’s report. The
judgment makes no mention of dismissal of her objection.

the timeliness of Pravita’s objection to the Special Master’s proces verbal, and any

determination of the trial court pursuant to its consideration of the exception of no

cause action was procedurally improper.5 Accordingly, we grant the writ

application, reverse the portion of the trial court’s August 10, 2023 judgment that

sustained Paskaran’s exception of no cause of action, and remand the matter for

further proceedings.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 2nd day of October, 2023.

MEJ
SMC
JJM

5
We note that, even if the exception of no cause of action were proper, the trial court’s judgment fails to state the
relief granted and, thus, lacks the necessary definitive decretal language. See, McLellan v. Yenni, 19-169 (La. App.
5 Cir. 9/18/19), 279 So.3d 1053, 1055.

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 10/02/2023 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-C-390
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Donald L. Foret (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Cynthia A. De Luca (Respondent) Laura J. Todaro (Relator)
Marynell L. Piglia (Respondent)

MAILED
Bruce Miller (Respondent)
Special Master
2955 Ridgelake Drive
Metairie, LA 70002