Shayla Priest, Independent for Estate of Bernita Garland v. Lighthouse Excalibur Insurance Company

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 22-77

SHAYLA PRIEST, INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX FOR

ESTATE OF BERNITA GARLAND

VERSUS

LIGHTHOUSE EXCALIBUR INSURANCE COMPANY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2021-1022
HONORABLE ROBERT LANE WYATT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

VAN H. KYZAR

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Van H. Kyzar, Jonathan W. Perry, and Charles G. Fitzgerald,
Judges.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD DENIED AS MOOT.

Wells Talbot Watson
Jeffrey Thomas Gaughan
Zita M. Andrus
Dominique S. Badon
Meagan N. Johnson
Bagget, McCall, Burgess, Watson, Gaughan & Andrus, LLC
Post Office Drawer 7820
Lake Charles, LA 70606-7820
(337) 478-8888
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Shayla Priest, independent executrix for Estate of Bernita Garland

Jimmy Arthur Castex, Jr.
John Benjamin Esnard
Gothard K. Reck
Castex Esnard, LLC
650 Poydras Street, #2415
New Orleans, LA 70130
(504) 562-9880
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Lighthouse Excalibur Insurance Co

John William Houghtaling, II
Jennifer Perez
Gauthier Murphy & Houghtaling, LLC
3500 North Hullen St.
Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 456-8600
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Shayla Priest, independent executrix for Estate of Bernita Garland

KYZAR, Judge.

Appellant, Lighthouse Excalibur Insurance Company (Lighthouse), filed a

Motion to Supplement Record with Missing Pleadings & Incorporated

Memorandum in Support. Appellee, Shayla Priest, Independent Executrix for the

Estate of Bernita Garland, has filed an opposition to the motion. For the reasons

stated herein, we deny the motion to supplement the record.

The instant suit was filed by Ms. Priest, on March 15, 2021, for the alleged

failure to adequately and timely adjust her claim. Lighthouse was served on May

3, 2021. When Lighthouse failed to timely answer the suit, Ms. Priest filed a

Motion for Preliminary Default on August 3, 2021. A Preliminary Default was

ordered on August 4, 2021. On October 13, 2021, Ms. Priest confirmed her

Default Judgment in open court, resulting in a judgment against Lighthouse. On

November 16, 2021, Lighthouse filed Exceptions, and Answer and Request for

Notice.

The following day, November 17, 2021, Lighthouse filed a Motion for

Appeal, and the order of appeal was signed on November 22, 2021. Lighthouse

maintains that all pleadings filed in the record on or before November 17, 2021,

should have been included in the record lodged in this court. Upon review of the

record, Lighthouse observed that at least two pleadings filed by Lighthouse on

November 16, 2021, were not included in the record, including its Exceptions and

Answer and Request for Notice. The record includes pleadings filed on November

17, 2021, but not those filed the day before. Lighthouse concludes that the

pleadings file-stamped into the record on November 16, 2021, were overlooked

and should have been included in the record lodged in this court.

Meanwhile, Ms. Priest filed her own Motion to Supplement Record with

Missing Documents and Incorporated Memorandum in Support. Ms. Priest argues

therein that all documents filed into the record before Lighthouse’s November 17,

2021 motion for appeal should have been included in the record sent to this court.

An order was signed by this court directing the lower court to supplement the

record with all documents filed into the record.

Per this court’s order, on April 28, 2022, the lower court supplemented the

record with all documents filed into the record before Lighthouse’s motion for

appeal. The supplemental record includes the documents Lighthouse seeks to have

supplemented in the instant motion. As such, we find that Lighthouse’s motion to

supplement is now moot.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD DENIED AS MOOT.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

2