Global Technical Solutions, L.L.C. Versus River Ridge Electric, Inc.

GLOBAL TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. NO. 23-CA-437

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

RIVER RIDGE ELECTRIC, INC. COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 775-178, DIVISION "M"
HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT, JUDGE PRESIDING

May 22, 2024

TIMOTHY S. MARCEL
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

REVERSED; REMANDED
TSM
FHW
SUS

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
GLOBAL TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC
Julie U. Quinn

MARCEL, J.

In this case arising from a petition for damages and injunctive relief relating

to a contract for electrical work/services, plaintiff-appellant Global Technical

Solutions, LLC seeks review of a September 11, 2023 judgment of the trial court

denying appellant’s motion to set aside judgment of abandonment. For the

following reasons, we declare that judgment null and remand this case for further

proceedings.

BACKGROUND

GTS and defendant River Ridge Electric, Inc. purportedly entered into a

verbal agreement on or about September 26, 2016 by which GTS was to provide

electrical services for and/or with River Ridge in connection with River Ridge’s

contracts with general contractors for remediation projects relating to the historic

flooding in and near Baton Rouge Louisiana in 2016. In August 2017, GTS filed a

petition for damages and injunctive relief against River Ridge which alleged that

GTS was owed $371,727.50 for services performed from September 2016 through

March 2017. River Ridge filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the petition

on November 1, 2017 and discovery followed.

On November 28, 2018, the trial court heard and granted GTS’s motion to

compel discovery. River Ridge made no appearance at this hearing. The record

indicates that GTS submitted a proposed written judgment with a certificate of

District Court Rule 9.5 compliance on December 5, 2018. However, the written

judgment was not signed and filed by the trial court until January 15, 2020.1

Notice of this judgment was mailed by the clerk of court on January 16, 2020.

Three years later, on January 16, 2023, GTS filed a motion for contempt wherein it

claimed River Ridge had failed to respond to the court’s order compelling

discovery and had failed to pay costs as ordered by the court.

1
The judgment was signed by the pro tempore trial judge.

23-CA-437 1

In response, River Ridge filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the suit on

grounds of abandonment and for failure to prosecute on February 22, 2023.

Attorneys for River Ridge claimed that no step had been taken in furtherance of the

suit between December 13, 2018 and December 14, 2021. The motion was granted

without contradictory hearing on February 23, 2023.2

On March 15, 2023, GTS filed a Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and for

Sanctions wherein it argued that the tolling of the abandonment period had been

interrupted by the trial court issuing the January 15, 2020 judgment. GTS also

sought sanctions against the attorneys for River Ridge for stating that the last

action taken in the prosecution of the case had been December 13, 2018 even

though the authority they cited in support of their motion to dismiss the suit held

that actions taken by the courts, such as the issuance of a judgment, interrupt

abandonment. On March 17, 2023, the trial court issued a Rule to Show cause

setting the hearing on the motion for April 14, 2023. Counsel for GTS filed a

motion to reset the hearing on the Motion to Set Aside. The trial court issued an

order resetting the hearing on the Motion to Set Aside for Monday, May 15, 2023

at 9:00 AM.

The motion to set aside was heard on May 15, 2023. Counsel for GTS did

not make an appearance. Notice issued to counsel for GTS by the clerk of court

had set May 16, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. as scheduled hearing date. In proceedings on

May 15, 2023, the trial court denied GTS’s motion to set aside and for sanctions in

open court. The written judgment of these rulings was not issued until September

11, 2023 pursuant to a request from this Court. Plaintiff’s timely appeal followed.

On appeal, GTS raises three assignments of error:

2
The next day, River Ridge filed an opposition to the motion for contempt arguing that it should be
denied or dismissed as moot.

23-CA-437 2

1) The trial court procedurally erred in denying appellant’s motion to set aside
dismissal for abandonment on May 15, 2023 for “failure to prosecute” even
though GTS had received notice setting the hearing date for May 16;
2) The trial court substantively erred in denying the motion to set aside
dismissal for abandonment because not more than three years had elapsed
since the last “step” in the case occurred to interrupt abandonment;
3) The trial court erred in denying GTS’s motion for sanctions against River
Ridge and/or its counsel for obtaining its ex parte judgment of dismissal for
abandonment through misrepresenting the law.
We consider this first assignment of error in our discussion below, and pretermit

discussion of the other assignments of error.

DISCUSSION

Notice of Hearing

We begin with an examination of appellant’s first assignment of error:

whether the trial court erred in denying GTS’s Motion to Set Aside Dismissal for

Abandonment for “failure to prosecute” because GTS did not appear for the May

15, 2023 hearing. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1672 authorizes the

trial court, on its own motion, to dismiss an action without prejudice when all the

parties thereto fail to appear on the day set for trial. However, Louisiana Code of

Civil Procedure Article 1571 mandates that district courts prescribe rules requiring

adequate notice of trial to all parties. As the comments to that article state,

adequate notice is a minimum requirement for reasons of due process. Further, La.

C.C.P. art 2004 states that “[a] final judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices

may be annulled.”

Generally, a final judgment rendered against a party that has not been served

proper notice of a hearing or trial is a relative nullity. See La. C.C.P. art. 2004;

Nullity of Judgments, 1 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Civil Procedure, §12.6, pp.

1-2, fn. 5 (“If notice other than process is not properly served upon a party and

judgment is rendered against the party as a result thereof, the judgment may be

23-CA-437 3

voidable under [La.] C.C.P. art. 2004 as one obtained by fraud or ill practices.”);

Sweeney, Inc. v. Olivier, 589 So.2d 61, 62-3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1991). The record in

this case shows that notice was sent by the clerk of court on April 24, 2023 to

counsel for GTS stating that the Motion to Reset Motion to Set Aside Order of

Dismissal for Abandonment was fixed for hearing/trial on the 16th of May, 2023 at

9:00 a.m., one day later than the actual hearing date of May 15th. Such notice

advising GTS of the wrong hearing date fails to meet the requirements of due

process. Therefore, we declare the September 11, 2023 judgment of the trial court

null and void. The courts have taken a broad view of what constitutes an “ill

practice” under Article 2004. Sweeney, 589 So.2d at 62. The article is not limited

to cases of actual fraud or intentional wrongdoing, but is sufficiently broad to

encompass all situations wherein a judgment is rendered through some improper

practice or procedure which operates, even innocently, to deprive the party cast in

judgment, of some legal right, and where the enforcement of the judgment would

be unconscionable and inequitable. W.G.T. v. E.A.A., 14-4 (La. App. 5 Cir.

9/10/14), 150 So.3d 339, 348-49.

In light of this determination, we pretermit any discussion concerning

appellant’s other assignments of error. We remand this case for further

proceedings consistent this judgment.

REVERSED; REMANDED

23-CA-437 4

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
MAY 22, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-CA-437
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE SHAYNA BEEVERS MORVANT (DISTRICT JUDGE)
JULIE U. QUINN (APPELLANT) CHARLES V. CUSIMANO, III (APPELLEE) WILLIAM PETER CONNICK (APPELLEE)

MAILED
CHRISTOPHER M. GAFFNEY (APPELLEE)
MICHAEL G. GAFFNEY (APPELLEE)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3015 19TH STREET
METAIRIE, LA 70002