Diamond Raymond Versus Kerry T. Raymond

DIAMOND RAYMOND NO. 25-C-444

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

KERRY T. RAYMOND COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 08, 2025

Linda Tran
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE DIAMOND RAYMOND

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH
OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE VERCELL FIFFIE,
DIVISION "A", NUMBER 82,232

Panel composed of Judges John J. Molaison, Jr.,
Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT GRANTED

On July 30, 2024, Respondent, Kerry T. Raymond, filed a Petition for

Divorce against Relator, Diamond Raymond. But Mr. Raymond did not request

service on Ms. Raymond within ninety days as required by La. C.C.P. art.

1201(C).1 As a result, Ms. Raymond filed a Declinatory Exception of Insufficiency

of Service of Process on November 6, 2024.

On July 23, 2025, 358 days after the petition was filed, the trial court

considered and sustained Ms. Raymond’s exception, finding that the record

contained no indication of any waiver of service or any attempted service by the

sheriff. Instead of dismissing the case against Ms. Raymond without prejudice

though, the trial court granted Mr. Raymond an additional fifteen days to request

service, concluding that Mr. Raymond should be given an opportunity to cure the

1
La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C) provides in part that “[s]ervice of the citation shall be requested on all
named defendants within ninety days of commencement of the action.”

25-C-444

defect pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 932. The trial court misapplied article 932

though, which states that “. . . if the court finds, on sustaining the objection that

service of citation on the defendant was not requested timely, it may either dismiss

the action as to that defendant without prejudice or, on the additional finding that

service could not have been timely requested, order that service be effected within

a specified time.” (Emphasis added).

La. C.C.P. art. 1672(C) further mandates dismissal without prejudice if

service is not requested within ninety days after the trial court sustains such a

declinatory exception, “unless good cause is shown why service could not be

requested . . .”.

Louisiana courts have strictly construed the good cause requirement of La.

C.C.P. art. 1672(C). For example, in Eugene v. Duroncelet, 19-224 (La. App. 5

Cir. 7/3/19), 275 So.3d 971, 975, writ denied, 19-1393 (La. 11/25/19), 283 So.3d

500, this Court found that the plaintiff did not show good cause for failing to serve

defendant within ninety days of commencement of the action when a letter

requesting service was mailed to the Clerk of Court but was not received. See also

Freeman v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 20-283 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/10/20), 307

So.3d 335, 338 (“Given that the requirement to request service within ninety days

of filing suit is to be strictly construed, the unsupported explanation as to why

plaintiff could not request service clearly did not constitute good cause within

well-settled strict application of La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C).”)

Mr. Raymond offered no evidence or testimony during the hearing to

explain why he could not have requested service within the ninety-day period and

failed to show good cause why his failure to request service of Ms. Raymond

within ninety days should be excused.

For these reasons, we find that the trial court erred when it gave Mr.

Raymond an opportunity to “correct the deficiencies herein and or request service

2

on defendant, Diamond Raymond.” Thus, we grant the supervisory writ filed by

Ms. Raymond and render judgment dismissing the Petition for Divorce filed by

Kerry T. Raymond without prejudice.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 8th day of October, 2025.

SUS
JJM
TSM

3

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 10/08/2025 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-444
E-NOTIFIED
40th District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Vercell Fiffie (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Rebecca A. Gilson (Relator)

MAILED
Justin P. LaFleur (Relator) Charles Ayles (Respondent)
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
200 North Cate Street 5713 Superior Drive
Hammond, LA 70404 Suite A5
Baton Rouge, LA 70816

r

■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3.
■ Print your 11$1"18 and addRIS8 on the reverse
so that we can r8tum the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mallpl8C¥J,
or on the front If space pennlts. ·
1. Article Addressed to:
If Ya!, enter delivery addf8ss below:
Jus · • Lafleur
Atto~atLaw
200 iilirth Cate Street
Hammond, LA 70404
25-C-444 10-08-25

~IIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIII II I IIII II 111111111111111
9590 9402 2434 6249 3580 82
i□·~~~
.,...,_,,_ ,_._, - - ·
g~~I ~·Aec...,,. .....
a Ccllect en o.ove,y Mlrd18nclllle
_ 2 _Artlcl
___ e _Num_ber_,__..,.fer_from--$81Y#ce--,........---- □ Ccllectcn DellYely Reetrlci,cl DeOwry O SlgnalU'e eannm.tlcn"'
• '....... -J - ~ Mall a SignaluN Ccnllnnatlon
7012 1010 0003 7112 5577 bMallAllelltcledDeM-, ANlrtc19dDellWly

•... PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Rehun Receipt