A'jaysia Joseph v. Crescent Crown Distributing, LLC Zurich American Insurance Company and Leroy Celestine

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-740 CONSOLIDATED WITH 23-741

A’JAYSIA JOSEPH

VERSUS

CRESCENT CROWN DISTRIBUTING, LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY AND LEROY CELESTINE

CONSOLIDATED WITH

WILLARD JOHNSON

VERSUS

LEROY CELESTINE, CRESCENT CROWN DISTRIBUTING, LLC AND
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20214099 C/W 20210833
HONORABLE MICHELLE M. BREAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CANDYCE G. PERRET
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Candyce G. Perret, and Sharon Darville
Wilson, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Brian C. Colomb
Gordon McKernan Injury Lawyers, L.L.C.
2505 Verot School Road
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 443-6954
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Willard Johnson

Chet G. Boudreaux
Gordon McKernan Injury Lawyers, L.L.C.
5656 Hilton Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
(225) 926-1578
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Willard Johnson

Thomas W. Darling
Laura W. Christensen
Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins, & Gremillion, L.L.C.
2223 Quail Run Drive, Suite C-2
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
(225) 663-6101
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Leroy Celestine
Zurich American Insurance Company
Crescent Crown Distributing, LLC

Wade A. Langlois, III
Kaylyn Blosser Handy
Gaudry, Ranson, Higgins, & Gremillion, L.L.C.
401 Whitney Ave., Suite 500
Gretna, LA 70056
(504) 362-2466
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Leroy Celestine
Zurich American Insurance Company
Crescent Crown Distributing, LLC

Andrew F. Barr
Hammonds, Sills, Adkins & Guice, L.L.P.
2431 S. Acadian Thruway, #600
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
(225) 923-3462
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Lafayette Parish School Board

G. W. Rudick, II
GW Rudick Injury Lawyers
100 Magnate Drive, Suite A1
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 326-4535
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
A’Jaysia Joseph

PERRET, Judge.

In this personal injury case, Willard Johnson (“Mr. Johnson”) filed suit against

Leroy Celestine (“Mr. Celestine”), Crescent Crown Distributing, LLC (“Crescent

Crown”), and Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) (collectively, “the

Defendants”), alleging that Mr. Celestine drove his 2015 tractor-trailer into the rear

of Mr. Johnson’s school bus. The Defendants filed an exception of prescription,

which the trial court granted. Mr. Johnson now appeals. For the following reasons,

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On February 18, 2020, at approximately 6:19 a.m., Mr. Johnson, an employee

of the Lafayette Parish School Board, was operating a school bus north-bound on

Louisiana Highway 725 when he was rear-ended by Mr. Celestine’s tractor-trailer

in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana.

On February 3, 2021, Mr. Johnson filed suit in the 27th Judicial District Court

for the Parish of St. Landry against Mr. Celestine, his employer, Crescent Crown,

and Zurich, the liability insurer of Mr. Celestine and Crescent Crown. The petition

stated that “[v]enue and jurisdiction are proper as the defendant, LEROY

CELESTINE is domiciled within the jurisdictional limits of this court.” The petition

provided that Mr. Celestine could “be served with process at 804 Guidry Street,

Opelousas, LA 70570[.]” On February 4, 2021, a citation was issued to Mr.

Celestine at this address, but service could not be made on February 5, 2021, by the

St. Landry Parish Sheriff. According to the February 5, 2021 service return, service

could not be made because the Sheriff was “[u]nable to locate” Mr. Celestine, and

the return further stated that the “subject [Mr. Celestine] does not live at address.”

On February 25, 2021, service was made on Crescent Crown and Zurich, and

on March 1, 2023, Mr. Celestine was eventually served.

On March 26, 2021, Mr. Johnson’s employer, the Lafayette Parish School

Board, filed a petition for intervention in St. Landry Parish for recovery of its

workers’ compensation payments.

On April 9, 2021, Crescent Crown and Zurich filed an exception of improper

venue in St. Landry Parish as to Mr. Johnson’s claims and requested that the suit be

dismissed or transferred to a court of proper venue. The exception alleged that venue

in St. Landry Parish is improper “because it is based on the incorrect domicile of

defendant, Leroy Celestine” and that “Celestine is no longer domiciled in St. Landry

Parish, and he has not been domiciled in this parish for a period of over one (1) year

prior to suit being filed.” Additionally, Crescent Crown and Zurich alleged that “the

venue of St. Landry Parish is not proper under any other provisions of the Louisiana

Code of Civil Procedure because it is not the venue of any other defendant or the

parish where the alleged wrongful conduct occurred or damages sustained.” The

memorandum in support of the exception stated that “[t]he evidence will

overwhelmingly show that Celestine’s domicile changed in 2019, two years prior to

the petition being filed,” and that “[t]he evidence will be [that] Celestine moved from

St. Landry Parish in 2018 to work in Dallas,” and “[h]e returned to Louisiana in 2019

and has lived in Lafayette Parish since.”

On April 16, 2021, Crescent Crown and Zurich also filed an exception of

improper venue to the Lafayette Parish School Board’s petition of intervention.

Again, Crescent Crown and Zurich argued that venue in St. Landry Parish is

improper “because it is based on the incorrect domicile of defendant, Leroy

Celestine” and that “the venue of St. Landry Parish is not proper under any other

2

provisions of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure because it is not the venue of

any other defendant or the parish where the alleged wrongful conduct occurred or

damages sustained.”

In response to the exceptions of improper venue, the trial judge signed a

consent judgment on July 22, 2021, which stated:

NOW COMES Crescent Crown Distributing, L.L.C., and Zurich
American Insurance Company, to state that presently on the Court’s
docket is defendants[’] Exception of Improper Venue, set for hearing
on August 6, 2021. Counsel for plaintiff Willard Johnson and
Intervenor Lafayette Parish School Board have consented to the
granting of the Exception of Improper Venue.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that [D]efendants’ Crescent Crown Distributing, L.L.C.
and Zurich American Insurance Company Exception of Improper
Venue is GRANTED. Furthermore, pursuant to article 932(B) of
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, this matter is transferred to the 15 th
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Lafayette. It is hereby ordered
that the Clerk of Court for the 27th Judicial District Court for the Parish
of St. Landry prepare all documents and pleadings necessary to effect
the transfer of this matter to the 15th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Lafayette.

The Defendants’ counsel attached a Rule 9.5 Certification to the consent

judgment, which stated as follows:

Pursuant to Rule 9.5 of the Uniform Rules for Louisiana District
Courts, undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a copy of the
foregoing Consent Judgment on the Exception of Improper Venue,
presently pending before the Court, was circulated to all counsel via
electronic method on the 12th day of July, 2021. Undersigned has
communicated with opposing counsel, and there is no objection to the
filing of this judgment.

Certified this 14th day of July, 2021.

On January 28, 2022, Mr. Johnson’s case was consolidated with another

matter pending in Lafayette Parish, A’jaysia Joseph v. Crescent Crown Distributing,

LLC, Zurich American Insurance Company, and Leroy Celestine, Docket No. 2021-

0833.

3

On April 12, 2023, the Defendants filed an exception of prescription to the

petition filed by Mr. Johnson and to the petition of intervention filed by plaintiff -

in-intervention, Lafayette Parish School Board. 1 The Defendants alleged that

although Mr. Johnson’s suit was timely filed, “it was filed in a parish of improper

venue which did not interrupt prescription, and no defendant was served within the

one-year prescriptive period for a delictual action. Therefore, this matter has

prescribed, and all claims should be dismissed.”

After a hearing on July 5, 2023, the trial judge orally granted the Defendants’

exception of prescription and dismissed all claims of Mr. Johnson and the Lafayette

Parish School Board with prejudice. In ruling, the trial judge stated as follows:

Okay. As you all know, first of all, thank you for the briefing. Those
of you that have practiced in front of me, I read everything and I have.
I have read the briefs. I have heard the oral arguments. Today we are
here on an exception of prescription. I’ve also looked at case law that
was cited and read several of the cases that were cited. I’ve also looked
at Louisiana Civil Code Article 3462, which deals with prescription,
because that’s what we are here on. And it is clear. With that said, the
peremptory exception of prescription is hereby granted.

A signed judgment was rendered on July 12, 2023. Mr. Johnson now appeals,

alleging the following sole assignment of error: “The trial court erred in granting

Defendants’ exception of prescription and dismissing Johnson’s claims against

them.”2

1
Counsel for Lafayette Parish School Board did not file any pleadings or memorandums
in opposition to the Defendants’ exception of prescription.
2
The Lafayette Parish School Board did not appeal the trial court’s July 12, 2023 ruling,
which granted the exception of prescription.

4

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

The standard of review on an exception of prescription depends on whether

evidence was adduced at the hearing on the exception. Allain v. Tripple B. Holding,

LLC, 13-673 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278. As this court stated in

Allain, 128 So.3d at 1285:

Prescription is a peremptory exception which is provided for in
La.Code Civ.P. art. 927. Evidence in support or contravention of the
exception may be introduced if the grounds are not apparent from the
petition. La.Code Civ.P. art. 931. An appellate court reviews the
exception under the manifest error standard of review if evidence is
introduced in support or contravention of the exception. Dugas v.
Bayou Teche Water Works, 10-1211 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/11), 61 So.3d
826. If not, the appellate court “simply determines whether the trial
court’s finding was legally correct.” Id. at 830.

In this case, the record contains a July 5, 2023 transcript of the hearing on the

exceptions of prescription as well as two exhibits that were entered into evidence by

the parties; therefore, we find the standard of review is manifest error. Under the

manifest error standard of review, this court cannot reverse a factfinder’s

determination unless it finds “a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding

of the trial court” and that “the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong

(manifestly erroneous).” Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 617

So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993).

DISCUSSION:

On appeal, Mr. Johnson argues that he filed suit in St. Landry Parish based on

Mr. Celestine’s representations to the investigating police officer on the day of the

accident. Mr. Johnson alleges that “[n]o court has ever determined that St. Landry

Parish is a court of improper venue, much less that Mr. Celestine was not domiciled

there,” and that the “Defendants waived any objection to venue in St. Landry Parish

by consenting to the transfer to Lafayette Parish, and should be judicially estopped

5

from objecting to venue in St. Landry Parish.” Further, Mr. Johnson argues that

even if the Defendants could show that “Celestine did not reside in St. Landry Parish

at the time of the [c]rash, but instead that he lied to the investigating police officer

twice, . . . the court still has the discretion to transfer the case to a proper venue,

instead of dismissing the case.”

In response, the Defendants argue that Mr. Johnson agreed to the consent

judgment granting the exception of improper venue and transferring the matter to

Lafayette Parish, and that he did not seek review of the consent judgment by either

a motion for new trial or appeal. Further, the Defendants argue that because the

original suit was filed in an improper venue, and because no defendant was served

within the one-year date of the accident, the trial court properly granted the exception

of prescription.

“Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription of one year. This

prescription commences to run from the day injury or damage is sustained.”

La.Civ.Code art. 3492. However, La.Civ.Code art. 3462 addresses the interruption

of prescription and states as follows:

Prescription is interrupted when . . . the obligee commences
action against the obligor, in a court of competent jurisdiction and
venue. If action is commenced in an incompetent court, or in an
improper venue, prescription is interrupted only as to a defendant
served by process within the prescriptive period.

An exception of prescription may be “pleaded at any stage of the proceeding

in the trial court prior to a submission of the case for a decision[.]” La.Code Civ.P.

art. 928(B). “The burden of proof on the prescription issue lies with the party

asserting it unless the plaintiff’s claim is barred on its face, in which case the burden

shifts to the plaintiff” to prove a suspension or interruption of prescription. Bailey

v. Khoury, 04-620, 04-647, 04-684, p. 9 (La. 1/20/05), 891 So.2d 1268, 1275.

6

In this case, the accident at issue occurred on February 18, 2020. The record

indicates that, although Mr. Johnson initially filed suit on February 3, 2021, Crescent

Crown and Zurich were not served until February 25, 2021, and Mr. Celestine was

not served until March 1, 2023. The record also provides that the parties entered

into a consent judgment, which was signed on July 22, 2021, wherein the

“defendants’ . . . Exception of Improper Venue [was] GRANTED” and the “matter

[was] transferred to the 15th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Lafayette.” The

record is devoid of any evidence indicating that Mr. Johnson’s counsel ever objected

to the proposed consent judgment language or the granting of the improper venue

exception. Neither party filed a motion for new trial nor appealed the July 22, 2021

consent judgment that granted the exception of improper venue. It is evident

from the record that the Defendants were not served within the prescriptive period;

thus, the filing of the suit in the improper venue, according to the consent judgment,

failed to interrupt prescription under La.Civ.Code art. 3462. As this court stated in

Charles v. First Financial Insurance Co., 97-1185 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/98), 709

So.2d 999, 1000, writ denied, 98-933 (La. 5/15/98), 719 So.2d 466, “it is well settled

that the transfer of an action to a correct venue, after prescription has run, does not

resurrect the plaintiff’s lawsuit.” See also Allen v. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety &

Corr. 12-430 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/12), 107 So.3d 106 (wherein this court also

concluded that, pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 3462, the filing of suit in an improper

venue failed to interrupt prescription because the defendants were not served within

the prescriptive period); and Stroder v. Town of Welsh, 23-75, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir.

11/2/23) (unpublished opinion), writ denied, 23-1587 (La. 2/6/24), 378 So.3d 753

(wherein this court affirmed the granting of an exception of prescription upon

finding that “under the unambiguous language of La.Civ.Code art. 3462,

7

prescription was not interrupted” while also noting that “the venue ruling was not

appealed” and, thus, not before the court).

Similarly to the Stroder case cited above, we also find the issue of venue is

not properly before this court; rather, the only judgment before this court is the

granting of the Defendants’ exception of prescription. Based on the record, we find

the Defendants satisfied their burden of proving prescription. Specifically, the

Defendants entered into evidence: (1) the signed July 22, 2021 trial court judgment

granting the exception of improper venue and transferring the matter from the 27th

Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Landry to the 15th Judicial District Court

for the Parish of Lafayette; and (2) the service returns indicating that service was

made on Crescent Crown and Zurich on February 25, 2021, and Mr. Celestine on

March 1, 2023, all outside of the prescriptive period.

For these reasons, we hereby affirm the trial court’s July 12, 2023 judgment,

which granted the Defendants’ exception of prescription. All costs of this appeal are

assessed against appellant, Willard Johnson.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

8