Kenneth Robinson and Youakisha Robinson Personally and on Behalf of Minor Child, Amarjai White v. Morehouse Parish School Board an Incorporated Body through Debbie Wilson, in her Official Capacity as President; and David Gray in his Official Capacity as Superintendent; Morehouse Parish School Board Members, Karen Diel, Louis Melton, Tab Wilkerson, Rick Hixon, Veronica Tappin, and Adrin Williams; Letha L. Heckford, in her Official Capacity as a Morehouse Elementary School Teacher

Judgment rendered May 21, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 56,289-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

KENNETH ROBINSON AND Plaintiffs-Appellants
YOUAKISHA ROBINSON
PERSONALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD,
AMARJAI WHITE

versus

MOREHOUSE PARISH SCHOOL Defendants-Appellees
BOARD AN INCORPORATED
BODY THROUGH DEBBIE
WILSON, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT;
AND DAVID GRAY IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SUPERINTENDENT;
MOREHOUSE PARISH SCHOOL
BOARD MEMBERS, KAREN
DIEL, LOUIS MELTON, TAB
WILKERSON, RICK HIXON,
VERONICA TAPPIN, AND
ADRIN WILLIAMS; LETHA L.
HECKFORD, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS A MOREHOUSE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TEACHER

*****

Appealed from the
Fourth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Morehouse, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2023-352

Honorable Walter M. Caldwell, IV, Judge

*****

SMITH & NWOKORIE Counsel for Appellants
By: Brian G. Smith

RANKIN, YELDELL & KATZ, APLC Counsel for Appellees
By: Stephen J. Katz

*****

Before PITMAN, COX, and ELLENDER, JJ.

PITMAN, C. J.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Kenneth Robinson and Youakisha Robinson,

personally and on behalf of their minor child Amarjai White, appeal the

district court’s granting of an exception of no cause of action filed by

Defendant-Appellee David Gray, in his official capacity as superintendent,

and of an exception of insufficiency of service of process and a motion for

involuntary dismissal filed by Defendants-Appellees Morehouse Parish

School Board, an incorporated body, through Debbie Wilson, in her official

capacity as president; Morehouse Parish School Board Members Karen Diel,

Louis Melton, Tab Wilkerson, Rick Hixon, Veronica Tappin and Adrin

Williams; and Letha L. Heckford, in her official capacity as a Morehouse

Elementary School teacher. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On September 14, 2023, the Robinsons filed a petition for damages

against Defendants. They stated that Heckford was employed as a teacher at

Morehouse Elementary School by the Morehouse Parish School Board.

They alleged that White, their daughter, was present in Heckford’s

classroom when Heckford became angry and committed an assault and

battery on White. They alleged that White suffered injuries from the attack

and that Heckford refused to provide any medical assistance to her. They

stated that the school failed to address the incident and injuries, to notify

them of the incident or to report the criminal act and that the school district

refused to call law enforcement. The Robinsons stated that they and White

suffer mental and emotional distress due to the actions of Heckford and the

school district. They requested that Defendants be held liable for all

damages, costs of the proceedings and any other relief deemed necessary

and proper by the court.

On October 10, 2023, Gray filed exceptions of vagueness and no

cause of action. He argued that the petition does not state the date of the

alleged incident or the alleged actions of Heckford. He also argued that the

petition does not note any specific act or inaction by him and, therefore, that

the petition fails to state a cause of action against him.

On February 5, 2024, Defendants, excluding Gray, filed a declinatory

exception of insufficiency of service of process and a motion for involuntary

dismissal for failure to request service of citation within the time prescribed

by La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C). They noted that the last line of the petition states

“PLEASE SERVE DAVID GRAY, SUPERINTENDENT,” but that

Plaintiffs did not request service on any other Defendant nor has any other

Defendant been served. They stated that the court record confirms that

service of citation was not requested on them within 90 days of the

commencement of the action as required by La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C).

A hearing on the exceptions was held on May 14, 2024. The district

court then filed a judgment on Gray’s exceptions of vagueness and no cause

of action. It found that the exception of no cause of action cannot be cured

with an amendment, granted the exception of no cause of action, found the

exception of vagueness to be moot and dismissed with prejudice the matter

as to Gray. It filed a separate judgment in which it sustained the other

Defendants’ exception of insufficiency of service of process, granted the

motion for involuntary dismissal for failure to request service of citation and

dismissed without prejudice the matter as to these Defendants.

Plaintiffs appeal.
2

DISCUSSION

No Cause of Action

Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in granting Gray’s

exception of no cause of action. They allege that Gray knew of Heckford’s

actions but refused to respond.

Defendants argue that the district court properly sustained Gray’s

exception of no cause of action and dismissed all claims against him with

prejudice. They state that Plaintiffs’ petition did not allege any act or

inaction by Gray. They note that La. R.S. 17:439 provides immunity for

school employees from tort actions and that Plaintiffs made no allegations

that Gray acted maliciously, willfully or deliberately to cause bodily harm to

harass or intimidate White or that his actions were outside the course and

scope of his employment.

The function of an exception of no cause of action is to test the legal

sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy

on the facts alleged in the pleading. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v.

Subaru S., Inc., 616 So. 2d 1234 (La. 1993). An exception of no cause of

action is triable on the face of the petition; and, for the purpose of

determining the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the

petition must be accepted as true. Indus. Companies, Inc. v. Durbin,

02-0665 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So. 2d 1207. It should be granted only when it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of

any claim which would entitle him to relief. Badeaux v. Sw. Computer

Bureau, Inc., 05-0612 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So. 2d 1211. If the petition states a

cause of action on any ground or portion of the demand, the exception

should generally be overruled. Id. Every reasonable interpretation must be
3

accorded the language used in the petition in favor of maintaining its

sufficiency and affording the plaintiff the opportunity of presenting evidence

at trial. Indus. Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, supra.

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling sustaining an exception of no cause

of action, the appellate court should conduct a de novo review because the

exception raises a question of law, and the trial court’s decision is based

only on the sufficiency of the petition. Indus. Companies, Inc. v. Durbin,

supra.

La. R.S. 17:439 states in part:

A. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no person shall
have a cause of action against any school employee based on
any statement made or action taken by the school employee
provided that the action or statement was within the course and
scope of the school employee’s duties as defined by the school
board in which the school employee is employed and was
within the specific guidelines for school employee behavior as
established by that school board.

B. As used in this Section, the terms “school employee” means
any school employee who has direct contact with students in
the course and scope of the school employee’s duties as defined
by the school board by which the school employee is employed,
and includes but is not limited to school-based administrators,
classroom teachers, coaches, librarians, counselors, teachers’
aides, clerical employees, lunchroom workers, custodial
workers, school bus operators, and school bus operators’ aides.

C. The immunity from liability established by this Section shall
not apply to any action or statement by a school employee that
was maliciously, willfully, and deliberately intended to cause
bodily harm to a student or to harass or intimidate a student.

In their petition, Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action against Gray.

There are no well-pleaded facts in the petition to accept as true—it is void of

any allegation of actions or inactions by Gray, in his capacity as

superintendent, that would entitle Plaintiffs to relief. In fact, Plaintiffs do

not mention Gray in any way in their petition except to name him as a

4

defendant and state that he should be served. Plaintiffs also made no

allegations that Gray is not immune from liability pursuant to La.

R.S. 17:439(C). Notably, at the hearing on the exceptions, Plaintiffs’

counsel stated that they did not have any objection to the trial court’s ruling

dismissing Gray from the lawsuit.

Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.

Insufficient Service

Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in granting the other

Defendants’ exception of insufficiency of service of process and motion for

involuntary dismissal.

Defendants argue that the district court properly sustained their

exception of insufficiency of service of process and granted their motion for

involuntary dismissal. They state that only Gray was served with the

original petition as Plaintiffs requested that only he be served. They allege

that Plaintiffs did not request service on the other Defendants within 90 days

of the commencement of the action and that, at the time of filing their

appellate brief, Plaintiffs still had not requested service on Defendants.

Service of the citation shall be requested on all named defendants

within 90 days of commencement of the action. La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C). If

the requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C) are not followed, a motion for

involuntary dismissal pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1672(C) is the proper

procedural vehicle for an aggrieved party to obtain a dismissal of the claims

against it. Filson v. Windsor Ct. Hotel, 04-2893 (La. 6/29/05), 907 So. 2d

723. La. C.C.P. art. 1672(C) states:

A judgment dismissing an action without prejudice shall be
rendered as to a person named as a defendant for whom service
has not been requested within the time prescribed by Article
5

1201(C) . . . upon the sustaining of a declinatory exception filed
by such defendant, or upon contradictory motion of any other
party, unless good cause is shown why service could not be
requested, in which case the court may order that service be
effected within a specified time.

A trial court’s dismissal of a suit for failure of the plaintiff to timely

request service is subject to the manifest error standard of review. Wilson v.

Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., 53,433 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/22/20), 295 So. 3d

1274, writ denied, 20-00717 (La. 9/29/20), 301 So. 3d 1176. However,

when the facts are not disputed and the issue before this court is whether the

district court properly interpreted and applied the law, the standard of review

for questions of law is simply a review of whether the district court was

legally correct or incorrect. Id.

In this case, Plaintiffs only requested service of citation on Gray

within 90 days of commencement of the action—they did not request service

on any other named defendant. At the hearing on the exceptions, Plaintiffs’

counsel admitted that the record did not reflect that there was service on any

Defendant but Gray. Defendants followed the proper procedure by filing a

declinatory exception of insufficiency of service of process and a motion for

involuntary dismissal, and the trial court did not err in granting this

exception and motion.

Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s granting of

the exception of no cause of action filed by Defendant-Appellee David Gray,

in his official capacity as superintendent, and of the exception of

insufficiency of service of process and motion for involuntary dismissal filed

by Defendants-Appellees Morehouse Parish School Board, an incorporated
6

body, through Debbie Wilson, in her official capacity as president;

Morehouse Parish School Board Members Karen Diel, Louis Melton, Tab

Wilkerson, Rick Hixon, Veronica Tappin and Adrin Williams; and Letha L.

Heckford, in her official capacity as a Morehouse Elementary School

teacher. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Plaintiffs-Appellants Kenneth

Robinson and Youakisha Robinson, personally and on behalf of their minor

child Amarjai White.

AFFIRMED.

7