Reneka Shepard on Behalf of Her Minor Child Lynkeith James, Jr. v. George Coleman

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-922

RENEKA SHEPARD ON BEHALF OF

HER MINOR CHILD LYNKEITH JAMES, JR.

VERSUS

GEORGE COLEMAN, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 252,981
HONORABLE GEORGE CLARENCE METOYER JR, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

WRIT DENIED.

Amy, J., concurs and would deny the writ, finding no error in the trial court’s
ruling.

Stephen D. Wheelis
Richard A. Rozanski
Shawn M. Bordelon
Wheelis & Rozanski
P. O. Box 13199
Alexandria, LA 71315-3199
(318) 445-5600
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS:
City of Alexandria
George Coleman

Paul Mantle Lafleur
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 1711
Alexandria, LA 71309
(337) 487-4910
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.

Benjamin D. James
Cory P. Roy
Brandon J. Scott
Roy & Scott
107 North Washington Street
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 240-7800
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT:
Reneka Shepard o/b/o Lynkeith James, Jr.

SAUNDERS, J.

The relators, George Coleman and the City of Alexandria (the city), seek a

supervisory writ from the judgment of the trial court, which denied the relators’

exception of prescription.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The incident giving rise to this suit occurred on U.S. Highway 165 in

Rapides Parish, Louisiana, on March 17, 2014. Lynkeith James, Sr. (Lynkeith, Sr.)

was driving a vehicle in which Lynkeith James, Jr. (Lynkeith, Jr.) was a passenger.

Plaintiff, Reneka Shepard, is the owner of the vehicle and is Lynkeith, Jr.’s mother.

The petition avers that a rock fell from the vehicle proceeding ahead of Plaintiff’s

vehicle. The City of Alexandria owned the vehicle from which the rock allegedly

fell; its employee, George Coleman, was the driver of the city’s vehicle. The rock

struck Plaintiff’s vehicle, allegedly causing damage to it and causing Lynkeith, Jr.

to sustain personal injuries.

On March 17, 2015, Plaintiff initially filed suit in Avoyelles Parish,

Louisiana, naming as Defendants the relators and State Farm Mutual Automobile

Insurance Company as the uninsured/underinsured motorist insurer for Reneka

Shephard. 1 Although the caption of the case indicates that Ms. Shephard is

appearing only on behalf of her minor child, paragraph VIII of the petition clearly

advances a claim on behalf of Ms. Shephard, individually, for property damages,

loss of use of the vehicle while it was being repaired, and towing and storage

charges.2

1
Plaintiff avers in the first paragraph of her petition that she is a resident and
domiciliary of Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
2
The record does not reflect that the error in the caption was noticed or
corrected.

The relators filed an exception of improper venue, apparently relying on

La.R.S. 13:5104(A).3 The trial court granted the exception by a written judgment,

which reads, in pertinent part:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that the Declinatory Exception of Improper Venue by GEORGE
COLEMAN and THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA is hereby
GRANTED as this Court finds the 12th Judicial District Court to be a
court of [i]mproper venue for this matter pursuant to the
Governmental Claims Act, La. R.S. 13:5101 et seq.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that this matter be transferred to the 9th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Rapides, Louisiana.

Thus, upon transfer of the case to the Ninth Judicial District Court, the

relators filed their Peremptory Exception of Prescription. In this exception, the

relators contended that Plaintiff’s suit was prescribed since the suit was originally

filed on the last day of prescription in a court of improper venue and each

Defendant was not served until after the running of the one year prescriptive

period. Plaintiff opposed the exception of prescription arguing that because the

suit had been timely filed in a court of proper venue as to State Farm, the suit acted

to interrupt prescription as to all joint tortfeasors; thus, Plaintiff argued that the

timely suit against State Farm acted to interrupt prescription as to the relators.

A hearing was held on the exception of prescription at which hearing no

evidence was introduced. The trial court denied the exception without reasons.4

The relators have filed the instant writ application praying for reversal of this

ruling and for dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit as prescribed.

3
Neither the relators nor the respondent, Ms. Shepard, who filed an
opposition memorandum to the writ application in this court, attached a copy of the
relators’ exception of improper venue. Therefore, we must rely on the allegations
of the memoranda, the attachments thereto, and the judgment on the exception of
improper venue to surmise the basis for the exception.
4
No transcript of the hearing has been provided to this court; therefore, the
statement that no oral reasons were given by the trial court is based on the
statements made in the memoranda filed in this court.
2

SUPERVISORY RELIEF
A court of appeal has plenary power to exercise supervisory
jurisdiction over district courts and may do so at any time, according
to the discretion of the court. In cases in which a peremptory
exception has been overruled by the trial court, the appellate court
appropriately exercises its supervisory jurisdiction when the trial
court’s ruling is arguably incorrect, a reversal will terminate the
litigation, and there is no dispute of fact to be resolved. In such
instances, judicial efficiency and fundamental fairness to the litigants
dictate that the merits of the application for supervisory writs should
be decided, in an attempt to avoid the waste of time and expense of a
possibly useless future trial on the merits. Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v.
Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La.1981) (per
curiam).

Charlet v. Legislature of State of Louisiana, 97-0212, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/29/98),

713 So.2d 1199, 1202, writs denied, 98-2023, 98-2026 (La. 11/13/98), 730 So.2d

934.

ON THE MERITS

One line of cases out of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal finds

that prescription is not interrupted as to governmental defendants for whom venue

is improper pursuant to La.R.S. 13:5104(A), even though suit was filed in a court

of proper venue as to a joint tortfeasor. E.g. Rico v. Clarke, 09-1360 (La.App. 1

Cir. 3/26/10), 36 So.3d 309, writ denied, 10-958 (La. 6/25/10), 38 So.3d 343;

Nunnery v. Elmore, 01-1766, 01-1767 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/2/02), 835 So.2d 645.

However, a more recent case out of that circuit reaches a contrary result. Finding

that the latter first circuit decision advances the more reasonable approach and

reaches the more appropriate conclusion, we affirm the trial court’s ruling in this

case.

In Rico, 36 So.3d 309, suit was initially filed in St. John the Baptist Parish

against a Baton Rouge Police Officer (David Clarke), the City of Baton Rouge, and

3

the plaintiffs’ UM carrier, for injuries allegedly sustained in a vehicular accident.5

The city and police officer filed an exception of improper venue, asserting that,

because the city is located in East Baton Rouge Parish and that is where the

accident happened, East Baton Rouge Parish only was a parish of proper venue for

the suit pursuant to La.R.S. 13:5104(A). The plaintiffs voluntarily filed a motion

to transfer their suit to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge

Parish, which motion the trial court granted. Once the suit had been transferred,

the city and police officer filed an exception of prescription because the suit was

not served on any defendant within the one year period following the accident. In

their motion to transfer the suit, the plaintiffs stated that St. John the Baptist Parish

was a parish of improper venue for their suit, and they again repeated their

admission in an opposition which was filed in response to the city’s and police

officer’s exception of prescription. The UM carrier was dismissed without

prejudice, but the basis for this dismissal is not clear from the opinion. The court

of appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of the exception of prescription and

ordered the suit dismissed.6

In Nunnery, 835 So.2d 645, suit was initially filed in Hammond City Court

for damages sustained in a vehicular accident. 7 However, the plaintiffs and

defendants jointly moved to transfer the city court action to district court. The

motion was granted. When plaintiffs amended that action to add the city, the city

5
The case never states that the plaintiffs were residents of St. John the
Baptist Parish. We can only speculate that they were and that this is the reason that
they filed suit against their UM carrier in that parish.
6
The exception of prescription was re-urged in the appellate court on an
appeal from the money judgment rendered against the city after the city admitted
liability and a jury awarded the plaintiffs damages.
7
A separate lawsuit was filed in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court by
another plaintiff, and the City of Hammond was named as an original defendant in
that action.
4

filed its peremptory exception of prescription. The trial court granted the

exception and dismissed the city from the suit.

On plaintiffs’ appeal of that decision, the first circuit affirmed. Despite the

plaintiffs’ argument that the addition of the city should relate back to the initial

filing, the appellate court stated:

[P]laintiffs commenced their action against Carr, Nunnery, Elmore,
and State Farm in the Hammond City Court, a court that has no
jurisdiction in this case in which the City, a political subdivision of
the State of Louisiana, is a defendant. See also La. R.S. 13:5104B
(requiring all suits against a political subdivision of this state be
instituted in the district court of the judicial district in which the
political subdivision is located). Procedural rights peculiar to one
case are not rendered applicable to a companion case by the mere fact
of consolidation; each case must stand on its own merits. ANR
Pipeline Co. v. Louisiana Tax Comm’n, 01-2594, p. 6, 815 So.2d 178,
183 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/20/02). As such, the Hammond City Court
was an incompetent court under La. C.C. art. 3462, and plaintiffs must
show that the City was served with process within the one-year
prescriptive period.

The record establishes, and the parties do not dispute, that the
City was first served with plaintiffs’ lawsuit after the matter was
transferred to district court when they amended and supplemented
their petition to name the City as a defendant, eight months after the
accrual of prescription. And assuming as true the representation made
in the transfer motion (that all counsel who had made an appearance
in both plaintiffs’ and Nunnery’s lawsuits agreed to the transfer,
which ostensibly included the City), because the parties could not by
their consent confer jurisdiction upon the Hammond City Court, the
plaintiffs’ claims against the City are nevertheless untimely.
Accordingly, the trial court correctly concluded plaintiffs’ claims
against the City are prescribed.

835 So.2d at 648 (footnote omitted).

The fifth circuit also faced a similar case to the instant one in Bell v. Kreider,

03-300 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), 858 So.2d 58, writ denied, 03-2875 (La. 1/9/04),

862 So.2d 986. Again, as a result of a vehicular accident, suit was filed, this time

in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, for an

accident which occurred on the Greater New Orleans Expressway. Suit was also

filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Eventually, plaintiffs
5

added governmental entities and employees who excepted to venue in the Orleans

Parish suit since the governmental interests were in Jefferson Parish. The Orleans

suit was transferred to Jefferson Parish, and the first Jefferson Parish suit was

dismissed on the basis of abandonment.8

Plaintiffs filed a new suit in Jefferson Parish district court naming the

subject governmental parties. Those parties excepted based on prescription, and

the trial court granted the exception, dismissing the second-filed Jefferson Parish

suit. The fifth circuit affirmed that decision stating:

The issue before us is a very narrow one in light of the very
unusual procedural circumstances which have developed in this
litigation. At issue herein is whether the interruption of prescription
as to joint tortfeasors, as contemplated under La. Civil Code Article
2324(C), is applicable where venue is improper as to one or more
joint tortfeasors. Neither side to these proceedings has been able to
offer any jurisprudential authority directly bearing on this issue. The
Court notes that the occurrence of such an issue seems rather rare
given that proper venue as to one joint tortfeasor is usually considered
proper venue as to all other joint tortfeasors in most suits.

To the extent that the unique circumstances of this case expose
a conflict between La. Civil Code Articles 2324(C) and 3462, we hold
that Article 3462 ultimately controls. “Where two statutes deal with
the same subject matter, they should be harmonized if possible;
however, if there is a conflict, the statute specifically directed to the
matter at issue must prevail.” Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, M.D., 99-2570
(La.5/16/00), 763 So.2d 575, 579. Of the two provisions, the
language of La. Civil Code Article 3462 directly addresses the issue
of prescription with respect to suits filed in the wrong venue.

When an action is not filed in the correct venue, LA-C.C. Art.
3462 clearly states that interruption only occurs as to those defendants
served within the prescriptive period. Neither the second 24th JDC
suit nor the CDC suit was timely served on Officer Brock and the
GNOEC within one year from the automobile accident that occurred
on December 30, 1998. Accordingly, interruption never occurred as
to these defendants and the claims set forth against them in the second
24th JDC suit had prescribed as of December 30, 1999.

858 So.2d at 64-65 (footnote omitted).

8
The appellate decision mentions that the ruling dismissing the first action
on the basis of abandonment was being challenged at the time of the appeal in the
related action.
6

More recently, in McKenzie v. Imperial Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 12-1648

(La.App. 1 Cir. 7/30/13), 122 So.3d 42, writ denied, 13-2066 (La. 12/6/13), 129

So.3d 534, the first circuit reached a conclusion contrary to its prior line of

jurisprudence. Once again, suit was filed as a result of a vehicular accident, which

occurred in St. Tammany Parish, but the plaintiff filed suit in St. Bernard Parish.

In the St. Bernard Parish suit, plaintiff named the offending driver, Sharon Braud;

Braud’s insurer, Imperial Fire and Casualty Company; and the plaintiff’s own UM

insurer, State Farm Insurance Company, as defendants. State Farm was later

dismissed from that suit due to settlement. The plaintiff amended the petition to

add the governmental defendant, the State of Louisiana, through the Department of

Transportation and Development.

The plaintiff also settled with the other remaining defendants and dismissed

them from the suit. DOTD excepted to being brought into the St. Bernard suit on

the basis of venue. The trial court granted the exception and ordered the case

transferred to St. Tammany Parish. DOTD then filed an exception of prescription .

On the DOTD’s exception of prescription, the trial court dismissed the

plaintiff’s suit. In reversing the district court and reinstating the plaintiff’s suit, the

first circuit stated:

Generally, prescription statutes are strictly construed against
prescription and in favor of the claim sought to be extinguished by it.
Bailey v. Khoury, 2004-0620 (La.1/20/05), 891 So.2d 1268, 1275.
Prescription may be renounced, interrupted, or suspended. See La.
C.C. arts. 3449 through 3472.

According to La. C.C. art. 3462, “[p]rescription is interrupted
when ... the obligee commences action against the obligor, in a court
of competent jurisdiction and venue[;]” however, “[i]f 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.” (Emphasis added.) An interruption of
prescription resulting from the filing of a suit in a competent court and
in the proper venue or from service of process within the prescriptive
period continues as long as the suit is pending. La. C.C. art. 3463.
7

DOTD argued in its exception that this suit was commenced
against it in an improper venue, based on La. R.S. 13:5104(A), which
provides:

All suits filed against the state of Louisiana or any state
agency or against an officer or employee of the state or
state agency for conduct arising out of the discharge of
his official duties or within the course and scope of his
employment shall be instituted before the district court of
the judicial district in which the state capitol is located or
in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in
which the cause of action arises.

Given that venue was improper with respect to DOTD, DOTD
contends that since it was not served within the first year of the
accident, under La. C.C. art. 3462, interruption of prescription as to
DOTD never occurred, that La. C.C. art. 2324(C) is inapplicable, and
that the plaintiff's claims against it are prescribed.

However, the plaintiff contends that it timely commenced the
action in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue, that the suit
interrupted prescription as to the defendants named therein, and since
one (or more) of those defendants are alleged joint tortfeasors with
DOTD, La. C.C. art. 2324(C) mandates that interruption of
prescription also occurred with respect to DOTD. The plaintiff
further argues that under La. C.C. art. 3463, the interruption of
prescription has remained in effect because the suit was still pending
when it filed the amended petition, and thus, the amended petition was
filed within the prescriptive period and his claims are not prescribed.
We agree.

According to the plaintiff’s petition, both the plaintiff and the
defendant, Sharon Braud, were domiciled in St. Bernard Parish, and
the accident occurred in St. Tammany Parish. Thus, this action,
initially filed in the 34th JDC for the Parish of St. Bernard, satisfied
proper jurisdictional and venue requirements when suit was
commenced. See La. Const. art. V, § 16(A) and La. C.C.P. arts. 42(1),
73(A), and 76. With regard to the interruption of prescription, La.
C.C. art. 3462 “looks to whether venue was proper at the time suit
was commenced, not whether venue is currently proper.” Moore v.
Kmart Corporation, 884 F.Supp. 217, 219 (E.D.La.1995); see also La.
C.C. art. 3463, comment (f) (“[i]ssues of interruption of prescription
are determined as of time of filing of the suit sought to be dismissed”).
This comports with the standard of strict construction required of
prescription statutes and the clear wording of La. C.C. art. 3462, and
does not lead to absurd consequences. Accordingly, we find that
when the plaintiff commenced suit on November 24, 2008, in the 34th
JDC for the Parish of St. Bernard (approximately one month after the
accident), prescription was interrupted. See La. C.C. art. 3462.
Pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2324(C), this interruption of prescription was
8

effective against all joint tortfeasors. And this interruption continues
as long as this suit is pending. See La. C.C. art. 3463.

Although the plaintiff’s petition was subsequently amended on
October 13, 2010, to include DOTD (an alleged joint tortfeasor) as a
defendant, and the action then became subject to the mandatory venue
provisions set forth in La. R.S. 13:5104(A) and was transferred to the
22nd JDC for St. Tammany Parish (where the accident occurred), this
does not change the fact that when the suit was commenced,
jurisdiction and venue were proper, and thus, prescription had already
been interrupted when the petition was amended.

In this case, we are not presented with the situation where suit
was initially commenced in an improper venue. Rather, this suit,
when commenced, was filed in a court of proper jurisdiction and
venue; however, venue subsequently became improper because of a
mandatory venue provision for governmental claims, when DOTD (an
alleged joint tortfeasor) was added as a defendant. This is a
particularly unusual issue, because in most suits, proper venue as to
one joint tortfeasor is usually considered proper venue as to all other
joint tortfeasors. See La. C.C.P. art. 73. Thus, the jurisprudence on
this issue is limited.

The McKenzie court goes on to discuss the decision in Bell at length. The

court opined:

Although we respect the opinions expressed by our brethren in
the fifth circuit court of appeal, we disagree with their opinion in Bell
and decline to adopt their reasoning on this issue. First, we note that
the sole issue before the court in Bell related to the trial judge’s ruling
on the issue of prescription as to the second 24 JDC suit; the decision
did not disclose the ultimate outcome of either the first 24th JDC suit
or of the CDC suit after it was transferred to the 24th JDC, which is
the situation more factually similar to the case before us.

Additionally, the fifth circuit, despite noting that “the CDC
suit[,] which was brought against the original defendants[,] satisfied
proper jurisdictional and venue requirements,” Id. at 63, failed to
recognize that once the suit was commenced in a proper jurisdiction
and venue, prescription was interrupted. In concluding that
interruption of prescription never occurred, the fifth circuit reasoned
that the unique circumstances of this case exposed a conflict between
La. C.C. arts. 2324(C) and 3462, and that La. C.C. art. 3462
ultimately controlled, because that article directly addressed the issue
of prescription with respect to suits filed in the wrong venue. While
we agree with the underlying premise espoused by the court (that
where two statutes deal with the same subject matter, they should be
harmonized if possible; however, if there is a conflict, the statute
specifically directed to the matter at issue must prevail, see Guitreau
v. Kucharchuk, M.D., 99-2570 (La.5/16/00), 763 So.2d 575, 579), we
9

do not find a conflict between La. C.C. arts. 2324(C) and 3462.
Louisiana Civil Code article 3462 sets forth the rule that prescription
is interrupted either (1) by filing a suit in a competent court and
proper venue, or (2) by service of process within the prescriptive
period. Once the interruption of prescription occurs as provided in
La. C.C. art. 3462, as between joint tortfeasors, then interruption of
prescription is effective against all joint tortfeasors under La. C.C. art.
2324(C). Furthermore, even if there were a conflict between the two
articles, we find that La. C.C. art. 2324(C) is the statute directly
addressed to the issue of interruption of prescription with regard to
joint tortfeasors, whereas La. C.C. art. 3462 simply addresses the
interruption of prescription by the filing of suit in general. Thus, in
the event of a conflict, La. C.C. art. 2324(C) would ultimately control.

122 So.3d at 51.

“In McKenzie, the court also discussed the Nunnery case out of the first

circuit. It found:

[T]hat Nunnery is factually distinguishable from the case before us,
and therefore, is inapplicable to this case. Although this court
recognized in Nunnery, 835 So.2d at 647, that the interruption of
prescription against one joint tortfeasor is effective against all joint
tortfeasors, this court’s decision that the initial suit in Hammond City
Court did not serve to interrupt prescription as to the City of
Hammond was based solely on the fact that the Hammond City Court
ultimately lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, that this
lack of jurisdiction could not be waived, and that “the parties could
not by their consent confer jurisdiction upon the Hammond City
Court.” Id. at 648; see also La. C.C.P. art. 3.

In this case, the suit was initially commenced in a court of
competent jurisdiction and venue; however, the action subsequently
became subject to the mandatory venue provisions of La. R.S.
13:5104(A). Although the venue requirements of La. R.S. 13:5104
are mandatory, they are waivable. See Franques v. Evangeline Parish
Police Jury, 625 So.2d 157 (La.1993). Thus, the question of
commencing an action in a court of proper jurisdiction and
commencing an action in a court of proper venue present two very
different issues. “Venue provisions are significantly different from
jurisdictional provisions.” Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hospital,
97-1997 (La.7/8/98), 714 So.2d 715, 716.

Accordingly, we find that the plaintiff established that when he
commenced suit on November 24, 2008 (approximately one month
after the accident) in the 34th JDC for the Parish of St. Bernard
against the defendants named therein, jurisdiction and venue were
proper. Under the clear language of La. C.C. art. 3462, prescription
was thus timely interrupted as to the defendants named therein, i.e.,
Sharon Braud, Imperial (her liability insurer), and State Farm (the
10

plaintiff’s uninsured/underinsured motorist insurer). Because the
plaintiff also alleged that Sharon Braud (and her liability insurer) and
DOTD are joint tortfeasors, this interruption of prescription as to
Sharon Braud (and her liability insurer) was effective against all joint
tortfeasors, including DOTD. La. C.C. art. 2324(C). Furthermore,
this interruption of prescription continues as long as this suit is
pending. See La. C.C. art. 3463. Accordingly, when the plaintiff filed
the amended petition to include DOTD, prescription had already been
interrupted, and thus, the amended petition was timely.

122 So.3d at 52-53 (emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.)

In the instant matter, like in Rico, suit was initially commenced with the

governmental entities as a parties. As such, as to the governmental entities, the

present action did not satisfy proper jurisdictional and venue requirements when

suit was commenced in accordance with La.Civ.Code art. 3462. However, we find

the reasoning expressed by the McKenzie court, in its discussion of Bell, to be the

more persuasive reasoning on this issue. Like our brethren in McKenzie, under the

facts of this case, we find no conflict between La.Civ.Code arts. 2324(C) and 3462.

While the governmental entities were named defendants in the original

petition filed in Avoyelles Parish, the employee and the city could have waived

venue. Unlike the Nunnery case, there was no jurisdictional defect in the original

filing in the instant matter. Moreover, a UM carrier and a tortfeasor are solidary

obligors. See Kelley v. General Ins. Co. of America, 14-180 (La.App. 1 Cir.

12/23/14), 168 So.3d 528. Because the suit had been timely filed in a court of

proper venue as to State Farm, the suit acted to interrupt prescription as to all joint

tortfeasors, including the City, in accordance with La.Civ.Code art. 2324(C),

which we conclude, like our brethren in the first circuit, “is the statute directly

addressed to the issue of interruption of prescription with regard to joint

tortfeasors.” McKenzie, 122 So.3d at 51. Thus, we find it controls in the instant

matter and conclude that the timely filed suit against State Farm acted to interrupt

prescription as to all defendants, including the governmental entities, since they are
11

joint tortfeasors. Therefore, we deny the writ application and affirm the trial

court’s ruling denying the exception of prescription.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying

relators’ exception of prescription; therefore, we deny the Application for

Supervisory Writs.

WRIT DENIED.

12