Case ID: so3d_162/html/0369-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CRICHTON, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Velma Claudine MALLET, Curatrix for Heather Levisee, Rositta McNair, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Children, Alexis G. McNair, Triston T. Echols, and Bradley McNair v. PARISH OF IBERVILLE, ABC Ins. Co., Iberville Parish Sheriffs Office, DEF Ins. Co., Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development, Andre Washington and American Standard Ins. Co.; Crystal Thompson v. Parish of Iberville.
    No. 2014-CC-2247.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 6, 2015.
   In re Parish of Iberville; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 65,365; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2014 CW1038.

Granted. The instant case is distinguishable from Louisiana Dept. of Transp. and Development v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C., 11-0912 (La.12/6/11), 79 So.3d 978, because plaintiffs failed to establish defendant had notice of the December 14, 2012 letter. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.

JOHNSON, C.J., would deny.

CRICHTON, J.,

additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Ii agree with the majority that the plaintiffs abandoned their suit because they failed to take any step in the prosecution in the trial court for a period of three years. Specifically, nothing was filed in the record from July 8, 2010 until March 12, 2014. The December 14, 2012 letter purportedly scheduling a Rule 10.1 conference relied on by the plaintiffs is insufficient to interrupt the abandonment period. It is undisputed that this letter was not filed into the record and the plaintiffs presented no evidence establishing the defendant had any notice of this letter. In the absence of any evidence the defendant had notice, I believe the concerns raised almost fifty years ago by then Judge Albert A. Tate, Jr. in his dissent from the denial of a rehearing in DeClouet v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 176 So.2d 471, 476 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1965), are applicable — namely, allowing ex parte actions to serve as a step in the prosecution “might interrupt prescription against abandonment without the opposing parties formally learning of them for months or years, to their possible prejudice.”