Sydiryl Lewis v. Iberia Bank
Sydiryl Lewis v. Iberia Bank, No. CW-0013-0927 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2014).
The holding in the court’s own words
Since this is the sole argument advanced by the plaintiff against the trial court’s decision and since we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this regard, we affirm the trial court’s judgment granting the exception of prescription and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Leeper v. Leeper 21 So. 3d 1006
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
P.O. Box 16577
Lake Charles LA 70616
(337) 433-9403
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Francis X. Neuner, Jr. Jeffrey K. Coreil
Laborde & Neuner LaBorde & Neuner
P.O. Box 52828 P. O. Drawer 52828
Lafayette LA 70505-2828 Lafayette LA 70505
REHEARING ACTION: February 12, 2014
Docket Number: 13 00927-CW
SYDIRYL LEWIS
VERSUS
IBERIA BANK
Writ Application from Lafayette Parish Case No. C-20124763
BEFORE JUDGES:
Hon. Sylvia R. Cooks
Hon. Jimmie C. Peters
Hon. Shannon J. Gremillion
As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the ruling for
the application for rehearing filed by Iberia Bank is:
MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED. We hereby grant the application
for rehearing filed by the defendant, IberiaBank, and modify this court’s ruling
of October 23, 2013, to state the following:
WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED. This court’s original ruling on the
instant writ application was based on an incomplete record. As pointed out
by the defendant, on December 12, 2012, the plaintiff, Sydiryl Lewis, was
personally served with notice of the hearing set for January 22, 2013, on the
exception of prescription. The plaintiff’s sole argument advanced against the
trial court’s ruling granting the exception of prescription and dismissing his
suit is that he was not present at the January 22 hearing. We find that the
defendant is correct in noting that the issue of whether to proceed in a civil
action without the presence of an incarcerated party who received proper
notice of the hearing is at the discretion of the trial court. See Leeper v.
Leeper, 44,777 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/23/09), 21 So.3d 1006. Under the facts of
this case, we find no abuse in the trial court’s decision to proceed with this
hearing in the plaintiff’s absence. Since this is the sole argument advanced
by the plaintiff against the trial court’s decision and since we hold that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in this regard, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment granting the exception of prescription and dismissing the plaintiff’s
suit.
cc: Sydiryl Lewis, Pro Se