Jonathan Edwards Versus Dg Ecommerce, LLC D/B/A Dollar General and Xyz Insurance Company

JONATHAN EDWARDS NO. 23-CA-189

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

DG ECOMMERCE, LLC D/B/A DOLLAR COURT OF APPEAL
GENERAL AND XYZ INSURANCE
COMPANY STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 78,378, DIVISION "C"
HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

January 31, 2024

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and Timothy S. Marcel

AFFIRMED
SJW
JGG
TSM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
JONATHAN EDWARDS
Pius A. Obioha
Joseph R. Barbie, Sr.

WINDHORST, J.

Plaintiff/appellant, Jonathan Edwards, appeals the trial court’s January 6,

2023 judgment sustaining the peremptory exception of prescription filed by

defendant/appellee, DG Louisiana, LLC (incorrectly named DG Ecommerce, LLC),

dismissing plaintiff’s claim against defendant with prejudice. For the following

reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 17, 2022, Mr. Edwards filed a petition for damages against DG

Ecommerce, LLC d/b/a Dollar General, alleging that he suffered injuries when he

slipped in a puddle of water and fell at a Dollar Tree store in LaPlace, Louisiana on

October 10, 2020. In a letter attached to this petition, plaintiff’s counsel stated that

he was refiling this petition, which was originally e-filed in the Fortieth Judicial

District Court on September 28, 2021 via the court’s e-filing software, Clerk

Connect. Counsel enclosed an e-mail confirmation from Clerk Connect and asserted

that the e-mail confirmed that the e-filing process for the petition for damages for

this case had been completed and the case had been assigned #105788.1 Counsel

also enclosed a copy of a screenshot of the civil e-filing portal allegedly showing the

submission number and the date of the e-filing of the petition for damages. In the

letter, counsel asserted that he did not receive notice from the Fortieth Judicial

District Clerk of Court’s Office that the e-filing of the petition had been rejected.

With regard to plaintiff’s counsel learning the petition had been rejected, he

stated the following:

Recently we contacted the clerk’s office to inquire about service
and gave the submission number. Ms. Andrenese Thomas of your
office, after checking the records, informed us that the submission
number showed that the petition for damages was filed on September
28, 2021. However, there was a rejection which was never sent to our
office so that we could promptly rectify the issue. If the rejection

1 The September 28, 2021 e-mail was sent to Pius Obioha, counsel for plaintiff/appellant, from
clerkConnect@softwareservices.net. The subject of the e-mail is “Clerk Connect E-Filing.” It states “E-
Filing Submission#105788” and “Documents Filed.”

23-CA-189 1

notification was never sent to our office or brought to our attention,
there was no way of us knowing about any rejection of the e-filing of
the petition for damages Lawsuit. As a result of the lack of notice of
any rejection, Plaintiff’s counsel truly and strongly believed that the
petition for damages as well as the Lawsuit was processed, and service
on the defendants was perfected, as was requested when the petition for
damages was timely filed on September 28, 2021.

In response to the August 17, 2022 petition, defendant filed a peremptory

exception of prescription, asserting that plaintiff’s claim had prescribed because the

petition was filed more than one year after the alleged October 10, 2020 incident

occurred. Plaintiff opposed the exception of prescription, arguing that he had timely

e-filed his petition on September 28, 2021 via the Fortieth Judicial District Court’s

electronic filing system, Clerk Connect, and that an error in the electronic filing

system required him to refile the petition. Plaintiff argued that the error in the

electronic filing was not something he could prevent and that it may have been

attributable to Hurricane Ida damage, which had occurred the previous month in

August 2021. Plaintiff attached to his opposition the same documents he had

enclosed with his petition relative to the alleged electronic filing of the petition (i.e.,

the e-mail confirming the electronic filing of the petition for damages and the

screenshot of the civil filing portal showing case number and date e-filed).

At a hearing on December 20, 2022, defendant argued that plaintiff’s exhibits

did not show that he had previously e-filed his petition for damages on September

28, 2021. Specifically, defendant pointed out that the e-mail allegedly confirming

the e-filing of plaintiff’s petition did not reference this or any specific case by name

or docket number, and thus, did not support the claim that a petition for damages had

been e-filed on plaintiff’s behalf on September 28, 2021. Consequently, defendant

argued that plaintiff’s petition for damages filed on August 17, 2022 was prescribed.

In response, plaintiff’s counsel argued that he had timely e-filed a petition, but

that it was not e-filed on September 28, 2021 due to a malfunction in the electronic

filing system and/or in the clerk of court’s office. Counsel asserted that in fairness,

23-CA-189 2

the alleged malfunction should not prevent plaintiff from having his day in court.

Plaintiff submitted his exhibits into evidence, and the court accepted them.

At the hearing, the trial court stated that plaintiff needed at least some baseline

proof of a malfunction to prevent it from sustaining defendant’s exception of

prescription. The trial court informed plaintiff’s counsel that the evidence admitted

was insufficient to meet the standard required to show that he had attempted to

timely file the petition, and that a malfunction in the electronic filing system

prevented plaintiff’s September 28, 2021 petition from being e-filed. As a result, the

trial court sustained defendant’s exception of prescription at the hearing and rendered

a written judgment on January 6, 2023.

Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial and/or motion for reconsideration of the

judgment of prescription (“motion for new trial”), requesting that the court vacate

its judgment sustaining the exception of prescription. Plaintiff argued that since the

judgment was rendered, he had contacted Software & Services, the entity

responsible for accepting e-filings for the Fortieth Judicial District Court, and

learned that it had no record of sending an automatic rejection notice to plaintiff’s

counsel relative to the September 28, 2021 e-filing. Plaintiff attached to his motion

for new trial self-serving unsworn “declarations” from Pius Obioha and Chris

Fontenot, the attorneys involved in handling this case. In his “declaration,” Pius

Obioha claimed that on September 28, 2021, his office e-filed a petition for damages

on plaintiff’s behalf through the Fortieth Judicial District Court’s electronic filing

system, Clerk Connect; that his office received an e-mail confirmation of the e-filing

with submission #105788; that his office never received a rejection notice regarding

the e-filing; that the Clerk of Court’s Office for the Fortieth Judicial District Court

does not have any evidence of the issuance of an automatic rejection notice; and that

equipment failure may have played a major role in the breakdown of the electronic

filing system. Chris Fontenot’s “declaration” claimed that Software & Services

23-CA-189 3

confirmed that it had no digital record of sending a rejection notice to plaintiff’s

counsel. Regardless, neither of these “declarations” were introduced into evidence,

and were both dated after the exception of prescription was sustained.

The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for new trial, finding that plaintiff

failed to prove that he properly e-filed the petition or that no rejection notice was

received. The court also concluded that plaintiff had discovered no “evidence

important to the cause, which he could not, with due diligence, have obtained before

or during the trial.” See La. C.C.P. art. 1972.

This appeal followed.

LAW and ANALYSIS

In this appeal, plaintiff asserts the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s

exception of prescription when plaintiff interrupted prescription by timely e-filing a

petition. Plaintiff asserts that the rejection of the petition due to a malfunction in the

electronic system should not be attributable to him, particularly because he did not

receive notice of the rejection.

Ordinarily, the burden of proving prescription lies with the party raising the

exception, but when prescription is evident on the face of the pleadings, the burden

shifts to the plaintiff to show that the action has not prescribed. Desi v. Thomas

Jefferson Constr. Corp., 19-502 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/5/20), 304 So.3d 1068, 1071-72.

Evidence may be introduced to support or controvert an exception of prescription.

La. C.C.P. art. 931. When no evidence is introduced at the hearing on the exception,

the appellate court simply determines whether the trial court’s finding was legally

correct. In re Med. Review Panel of Gerard Lindquist, 18-444 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/23/19), 274 So.3d 750, 754, writ denied, 19-01034 (La. 10/1/19), 280 So.3d 165.

When evidence is introduced at a trial on an exception of prescription, the trial

court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest error or clearly wrong

standard. Id. at 1072.

23-CA-189 4

An appellate court cannot set aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence

of “manifest error,” or unless it is clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, 617 So.2d 880,

882 (La. 1993). There is a two-part test for reversal of a factfinder’s determinations:

(1) the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does

not exist for the finding of the trial court, and (2) the appellate court must further

determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong. Coleman v.

Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 19-305 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/27/19), 284 So.3d 1262, 1268.

We review the facts, not to determine whether the trial court was right or wrong, but

whether the conclusion was a reasonable one. Id.; Troxclair v. Liberty Pers. Ins.

Co., 17-520 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/21/18), 239 So.3d 1067, 1069.

Plaintiff’s tort suit is subject to the one-year liberative prescription for

delictual actions, commencing the day the injury or damage is sustained. La. C.C.

art. 3492. As reflected in the petition, the accident giving rise to plaintiff’s suit

occurred on October 10, 2020. Therefore, the petition filed on August 17, 2022 was

prescribed on its face. Consequently, plaintiff bore the burden of proof to show that

the suit was not prescribed. Carter v. Haygood, 04-0646 (La. 1/19/05), 892 So.2d

1261, 1267.

Prescription is interrupted when the obligee commences an action against the

obligor in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue. La. C.C. art. 3462. An

individual commences a civil action by filing a pleading presenting the demand in a

court of competent jurisdiction. La. C.C.P. art. 421. A pleading or document filed

electronically is deemed filed on the date and time stated on the confirmation of

electronic filing sent from the system, if the clerk of court accepts the electronic

filing. La. C.C.P. art. 253 B.

Plaintiff asserts that he complied with the requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 253

B, and that his petition for damages should be deemed timely e-filed. He argues that

23-CA-189 5

an electronic error in the e-filing system not attributable to him should not result in

the prescription of his claim.

Plaintiff argues that the Stevenson v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 19-637 (La.

4/3/20), 341 So.3d 1202, case supports his position. In the Stevenson case, the

Louisiana Supreme Court found that plaintiffs’ attempts to fax file their petition with

the clerk of court prior to midnight on the last day of the prescriptive period were

sufficient to interrupt prescription. Id. at 1208. Plaintiff therein was unable to file

his petition because the court turned off its fax machine when it closed, but evidence

showed that there were attempts to file before midnight. The transmission was

confirmed as received the following morning and the suit was successfully filed.

The Stevenson court agreed with the reasoning of the court in Lloyd v. Monroe

Transit Auth. ex rel. City of Monroe, 50,292 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/13/16), 185 So.3d

866, writ denied, 16-277 (La. 4/8/16), 191 So.3d 585, which addressed a

substantially similar situation and reached the same conclusion, i.e., that attempts

were made to file, but were unsuccessful due to the fax machine being turned off at

the close of business.

In Lloyd, plaintiff attempted to fax file a petition on the last date of the

prescriptive period, but the transmission was not confirmed as received by the clerk

of court’s fax machine until the next morning. 185 So.3d at 866-67. Plaintiff’s

counsel attempted a fax filing beginning at 4:24 p.m., before the end of the business

day, and continued to try to file the petition into the evening. Id. The transmission

was not confirmed until the following day because it was the clerk of court’s policy

to turn off the fax machine at the close of regular business hours at 4:30 p.m. Id. In

finding the suit timely, the court explained that a fax transmission need not be

received during regular working hours so long as a transmission occurred before

midnight on the final date for the running of the prescriptive period. Id. at 870.

23-CA-189 6

In this case, plaintiff presented no documentation to the trial court that shows

a petition for damages was e-filed regarding his case on September 28, 2021. The

e-mail on which plaintiff relies to establish the September 28, 2021 e-filing does not

reference a specific case or the type of pleading allegedly e-filed. The e-mail

contains nothing to suggest that it pertains to this case, much less that it confirms the

e-filing of a petition for damages. There is also no evidence from the Fortieth

Judicial District Clerk of Court indicating any record of an e-filing or attempted e-

filing regarding this case on the alleged date of e-filing.

In addition, plaintiff offered no suggestion that he made any payment for the

e-filing of the alleged September 21, 2021 petition. In fact, the exhibits which he

introduced show that “$0.00” court costs or expenses were paid on plaintiff’s file.

Further, plaintiff counsel claims that he first discovered that the petition had not been

filed when he allegedly checked whether service had been made some eleven months

after the alleged attempt to file on September 28, 2021. We find no evidence to

support that a there was any genuine attempt to timely e-file the petition. In fact,

plaintiff’s exhibits and the circumstances indicate the contrary.

We therefore agree with the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to

show that he attempted to e-file this identical case within the prescriptive period, or

that any attempted e-filing was rejected due to malfunction in the court’s electronic

filing system.

The Stevenson and Lloyd cases are distinguishable from the facts in this case.

In Stevenson and Lloyd, the petitions were actually filed the day after the last day of

the prescriptive period, and there was sufficient evidence of counsel’s attempts to

file within the prescriptive period. Here, plaintiff’s counsel refiled the petition

eleven months after the expiration of the prescriptive period. In addition, plaintiff’s

counsel made no effort to follow up regarding the alleged initial filing until several

months later. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel offered no testimony or evidence from

23-CA-189 7

a clerk of court employee to support that a malfunction or error in the electronic

filing system and/or clerk of court’s office itself caused the September 28, 2021

petition to not be properly e-filed or his assertion that he followed the e-filing

procedures.

Considering the foregoing, we find no manifest error in the trial court’s

judgment sustaining defendant’s exception of prescription and dismissing plaintiff’s

claim.

DECREE

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment sustaining

defendant’s exception of prescription and dismissing plaintiff’s claim.

AFFIRMED

23-CA-189 8

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
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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 JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
JANUARY 31, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-CA-189
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY (DISTRICT JUDGE)
PIUS A. OBIOHA (APPELLANT) SHANNON O. HARRISON (APPELLEE)

MAILED
MICHAEL L. BALLERO (APPELLEE) JOSEPH R. BARBIE, SR. (APPELLANT)
TREVOR C. DAVIES (APPELLEE) ATTORNEY AT LAW
ATTORNEY AT LAW 1550 NORTH BROAD STREET
1340 POYDRAS STREET NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119
SUITE 2000
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112