Tonya D. Gueldner v. Allstate Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 09-720

TONYA D. GUELDNER, ET AL.

VERSUS

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20010072
HONORABLE THOMAS R. DUPLANTIER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, J. David Painter, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Ian Alexander Macdonald
Longman Russo
P. O. Drawer 3408
Lafayette, LA 70502-3408
(337) 262-9000
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Progressive Security Insurance Co.
US Agencies Casualty Insurance Co.

Christopher Shannon Hardy
Penny & Hardy
P. O. Box 2187
Lafayette, LA 70502-2187
(337) 231-1955
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
Allstate Insurance Company
Joshua Guilbeaux

Jean-Paul Layrisson
Attorney at Law
607 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 522-7100
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Amy Gueldner
David Gueldner

Michael J. Remondet Jr.
Jeansonne & Remondet
P.O Box 91530
Lafayette, LA 70509
(337) 237-4370
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
Jeremy Gueldner

Tammy Bodin Scelfo
Allen & Gooch
P. O. Box 81129
Lafayette, LA 70598-1129
(337) 291-1000
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
US Agencies Casualty Insurance Co.
Progressive Security Insurance Co.

Benjamin David Beychok
Bret Thomas Walsh
Beychok & Walsh
10225 Florida Blvd., Suite 802
Baton Rouge, LA 70815
(225) 272-7474
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
Kim Credeur

Gregory Jesse Logan
The Logan Law Firm
P. O. Box 3424
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 232-6210
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
Cue Time, Inc.

Shannon Jay Thomas
Thomas E. Gibbs & Assoc.
10988 N. Harrell's Ferry, #19
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
(225) 272-0020
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
US Agencies Casualty Insurance Co.

Michael Langdon Cave
Cave Law Firm
3909 Plaza Tower Dr.
Baton Rouge, LA 70816-4356
(225) 292-3194
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:
Tonya Gueldner

Scott F. Higgins
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 91530
Lafayette, LA 70509
(337) 237-4370
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
Jeremy Gueldner

GREMILLION, Judge.

The plaintiff, Tonya D. Gueldner, appeals the judgment in favor of the

defendant, Cue Time, Inc., granting its motion to dismiss the case due to

abandonment. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The underlying facts in this case are not at issue in this appeal.

Litigation in this matter has been ongoing since 2001, when Gueldner filed suit for

the wrongful death of her husband who was struck by a minor defendant. The minor

had allegedly been drinking alcohol at Cue Time, a bar.

On August 12, 2008, Cue Time filed a Motion and Order to Dismiss for

Want of Prosecution. Gueldner filed a Motion to Set Aside the Judgment to Dismiss.

Following a February 2009 hearing, the trial court granted Cue Time’s motion finding

the case had been abandoned. Gueldner now appeals.

ISSUES

Gueldner assigns as error:

1. The trial court’s finding that the action was abandoned
when the suit record reveals that she filed discovery within
three years of the date she filed a request for status
conference and trial date.

2. The trial court’s ruling that the action was abandoned given
the extension of liberative prescription by Executive
Orders KBB 2005-32, 2005-48, and 2005-67.

DISCUSSION

The issue of whether a step in the prosecution of a case has been taken

for a period of three years is a factual determination subject to manifest error review.

See Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc., 09-0410 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09),

__So.3d__, writ denied, 09-2216 (La. 12/18/09), __So.3d __. If proven, the

1

determination of whether the act precludes abandonment is a question of law that we

review by determining if the trial court was legally correct. Id.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 561 governs abandonment

and states in part (emphasis added):

A. (1) An action, except as provided in Subparagraph (2) of this
Paragraph, is abandoned when the parties fail to take any step in its
prosecution or defense in the trial court for a period of three years . . .

(2) If a party whose action is declared or claimed to be abandoned
proves that the failure to take a step in the prosecution or defense in the
trial court or the failure to take any step in the prosecution or disposition
of an appeal was caused by or was a direct result of Hurricane Katrina
or Rita, an action originally initiated by the filing of a pleading prior to
August 26,2005, which has not previously been abandoned in
accordance with the provisions of Subparagraph (1) of this Paragraph,
is abandoned when the parties fail to take any step in its prosecution or
defense in the trial court for a period of five years . . . .

B. Any formal discovery as authorized by this Code and served
on all parties whether or not filed of record, including the taking of a
deposition with or without formal notice, shall be deemed to be a step
in the prosecution or defense of an action.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1474 pertains to the service of discovery

materials and states in part (emphasis added):

A. Except as otherwise provided by Article 1430, All of the
objections, notices, requests, affidavits, interrogatories, and answers to
interrogatories, required by any Article in this Chapter to be in writing
and served on an adverse party, may be served as provided in Article
1313.

....

(4) The serving of any discovery materials pursuant to the
provisions of this Article shall be considered a step in the prosecution
or defense of an action for purposes of Article 561, notwithstanding that
such discovery materials are not filed in the record of the proceedings.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1313(A)(1) instructs that service by mail

is “complete upon mailing.”

2

On August 5, 2005, Gueldner composed a letter with attached discovery

to Cue Time and fax-filed with the Clerk of Court on the same date.1 The Certificate

of Service on the second page of the interrogatories states:

I hereby certify that I have on this 5th day of August, 2005, served
a copy of the foregoing pleading on all counsel of record or all parties
of record to this proceeding, by placing same in the United States Mail,
properly addressed and first class postage paid.

The envelope bearing the certified mail sticker affixed to its front was submitted into

evidence. It has a postmark of August 08, 2005. Cue Time received the discovery

request on August 9, 2005. An original copy of the fax-filed discovery was filed into

the record on August 12, 2005. On August 12, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Request for

Status Conference and Trial Date. Also on August 12, 2008, CueTime filed a Motion

and Order to have the cause dismissed for Want of Prosecution. The trial court

granted Cue Time’s motion on August 14, 2008.

On appeal, Gueldner argues that the August 12, 2005 discovery was a different

“original” discovery document and was not the same one that was fax-filed on August

5, 2005. We find no merit to this argument. The documents are identical except that

1
Louisiana Revised Statute 13:850 pertains to fax filing and states in part:

A. Any paper in a civil action may be filed with the court by facsimile
transmission. All clerks of court shall make available for their use equipment to
accommodate facsimile filing in civil actions. Filing shall be deemed complete at the
time that the facsimile transmission is received and a receipt of transmission has been
transmitted to the sender by the clerk of court. The facsimile when filed has the same
force and effect as the original.

B. Within five days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the clerk of court has
received the transmission, the party filing the document shall forward the following
to the clerk:
(1) The original signed document.
(2) The applicable filing fee, if any.
(3) A transmission fee of five dollars.

C. If the party fails to comply with the requirements of Subsection B, the
facsimile filing shall have no force or effect. The various district courts may provide
by court rule for other matters related to filings by facsimile transmission.

3

Gueldner’s counsel or counsel’s agent added the name and address of the registered

agent for service of process of Cue Time along with the last known address of Cue

Time. Moreover, a different “original” filing in the record is insufficient to count as

a step. Clearly, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure contemplates service upon all

parties which is accomplished in several ways, none of which include filing in the

record. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1313. The “step” in the prosecution for purposes of

determining if more than three years has elapsed, occurred on August 8, 2005, the

date discovery was mailed. Thus, Gueldner’s August 12, 2008 filing was too late to

avoid abandonment. Accordingly, we find no error in the finding that there was no

step in the prosecution of the case for a period of more than three years and the trial

court properly dismissed the case due to abandonment.

SUSPENSION

Alternatively, Gueldner argues the claim was not abandoned pursuant

to executive orders suspending deadlines in legal proceedings from August 29, 2005

through November 25, 2005, because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.2 We note that

this issue was not raised at the trial level, and pursuant to the Uniform Rules,

Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3, we need not address it. See also Assaleh v.

Sherwood Forest Country Club, Inc., 07-1939 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/2/08), 991 So.2d 67.

Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, we will consider the argument.

Gueldner argues that “because prescription was extended for the eighty-

nine day time period from August 29, 2005 to November 25, 2005 by Executive

Orders, [Gueldner’s] action against Cue Time, Inc. is not abandoned as formal steps

2
We note that Article 561 does add an additional two years if the party whose claim would
be ordinarily be abandoned if she can prove that the failure to take a step was caused by or was a
direct result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita.

4

in the prosecution of the action were taken within the prescriptive time periods

proscribed by law.” Gueldner points to True Gospel of Jesus Christ Church Ministry

v. Doucette, 08-0634 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/19/08), 999 So.2d 795, in support of her

contention.

The legislative codification of Executive Orders KBB 2005-32, 2005-48,

and 2005-67 is found in La.R.S. 9:5822. It states in part (emphasis added):

A. All prescriptions, including liberative, acquisitive, and the
prescription of nonuse, and all peremptive periods shall be subject to a
limited suspension and/or extension during the time period of August
26, 2005, through January 3, 2006; however, the suspension and/or
extension of these periods shall be limited and shall apply only if these
periods would have otherwise lapsed during the time period of August
26, 2005, through January 3, 2006. This limited suspension and/or
extension shall terminate on January 3, 2006, and any right, claim or
action which would have expired during the time period of August 26,
2005, through January 3, 2006, shall lapse on January 4, 2006.

According to the plain language of this statute, it does not apply to the facts at hand

as the claim did not lapse during the listed period from August 26, 2005, through

January 3, 2006. See Harris v. Stogner, 07-1451 (La. 11/9/07), 967 So.2d 1151 (three

year abandonment period accrued on December 20, 2005, thus plaintiff had until

January 4, 2006 to avoid abandonment of his claim); Compensation Specialities,

L.L.C. v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 08-1549 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/13/09), 6 So.3d

275, writ denied, 09-0575 (La. 4/24/09), 7 So.3d 1200.

In this case, the claim was not abandoned until August 8, 2008, more

than two-and-a-half years following the period for which the exception was granted

due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In agreement with our colleagues at the first

circuit, we also decline to follow the holding in True Gospel, 999 So.2d 795, which

tacked on an additional eighty-nine days to a claim that abandoned on December 26,

2006. See Compensation Specialities, 6 So.3d 275.

5

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant-appellee, Cue

Time, Inc. is hereby affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the

plaintiff-appellant, Tonya D. Gueldner.

AFFIRMED.

6