Mary Hotard Becnel, as Independent of the Succession of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. Versus Camilo K. Salas III

MARY HOTARD BECNEL, AS INDEPENDENT NO. 25-C-357
EXECUTRIX OF THE SUCCESSION OF
DANIEL E. BECNEL, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT

VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL

CAMILO K. SALAS III STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 13, 2025

Linda Tran
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE CAMILO K. SALAS III

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
MICHAEL E. KIRBY, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 70,582

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT GRANTED; RULINGS REVERSED; REQUEST FOR TRIAL
BY JURY REINSTATED; MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL GRANTED;
MATTER REMANDED

Defendant/relator, Camilo K. Salas III, seeks this Court’s emergency

supervisory review of the trial court’s August 11, 2025 judgment which granted

plaintiff/respondent’s Motion to Strike Jury Demand and denied relator’s Motion

to Continue Trial, currently set for August 18, 2025.

On the showing made, after thorough review and consideration of the writ

application and the supplement thereto, for the following reasons, we conclude that

relator has shown the trial judge abused his discretion in granting the Motion to

Strike Jury Demand, and also in denying the Motion to Continue Trial.

As shown by the transcript included in the writ application of the hearing

before the trial judge on August 6, 2025, the judge admitted that he twice failed to

render a written scheduling order in this matter: (1) the first time by failing to enter

a proposed scheduling order prepared by respondent’s attorney, Mr. Klibert, and

sent to the trial judge, Judge Kirby, subsequent to a December 28, 2022 telephone

scheduling conference (which order was never signed by Judge Kirby); and (2) the

second time by failing to enter a scheduling order after Judge Kirby sua sponte

continued the trial on October 18, 2024, during a court hearing/conference. Such

failures by the trial judge are in contravention to the provisions of La. C.C.P. art.

1551(B), which provides:

The court shall render an order which recites the action taken at the
conference [pursuant to Paragraph A of this Article], the
amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements made by
the parties as to any of the matters considered, and which limits the
issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or
agreements of counsel. Such order controls the subsequent course
of the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest
injustice.

(Emphasis added.)

Trial courts are given discretion to hold pre-trial conferences for purposes of

simplifying the issues of a case, determining whether pleadings should be

amended, determining what material facts are truly disputed, and identifying

witnesses, documents, and exhibits. Gutierrez v. Baldridge, 10-1528 (La. App. 3

Cir. 5/11/11), 65 So.3d 251, 254, writ denied, 11-1589 (La. 10/7/11), 71 So.3d 319.

A court that holds such a conference must render an order memorializing the

actions taken at the conference. La. C.C.P. art. 1551. That order “controls the

subsequent course of the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest

injustice.” Id. Thus, the language in Article 1551(B) is mandatory when a pre-trial

conference is held. (“The court shall render an order … .”).

The theory inherent in pre-trial procedure is the avoidance of surprise and

the allowance of the orderly disposition of the case. Moonan v. Louisiana Medical

Mutual Insurance Company, 16-113 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/22/16), 202 So.3d 529, 533,

writ denied, 16-2048 (La. 1/9/17), 214 So.3d 869.

The lack of a written pre-trial/scheduling order in this matter appears to have

had a deleterious effect on the orderly disposition of the case. Given that no pre-

trial/scheduling order was rendered in this matter on at least the two occasions

noted above, and the protracted history of this case as revealed by the writ

application, which evidences the need for “the avoidance of surprise and the

allowance of the orderly disposition of the case” that the rendering of a proper pre-

trial/scheduling order can achieve, we find that the trial court abused its discretion

in denying relator’s Motion to Continue Trial and also in granting plaintiff’s

Motion to Strike the Jury Demand.1

Accordingly, we grant the writ application, reverse the trial court’s rulings in

question, reinstate relator’s request for trial by jury, grant relator’s Motion to

Continue Trial, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings

consistent with this disposition.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 13th day of August, 2025.

JGG
MEJ
SUS

1
The writ application reveals that the basis for the Motion to Strike Jury Demand was
defendant’s failure to timely post the jury bond and cash deposit in advance of trial in accordance
with the law and the local rules of court, thus compelling the trial court to grant the Motion to
Strike Jury Demand. It appears, however, that a Jury Bond Order was never issued by the trial
court in this case, and thus, defendant never had an opportunity to timely comply with a Jury
Bond Order.

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. TRAN
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 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 08/13/2025 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:

25-C-357
E-NOTIFIED
40th District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Michael E. Kirby (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Kevin P. Klibert (Respondent)
Camilo K. Salas, III (Relator)

MAILED