Case Name: Louwanna Coleman JAMES v. FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION OF LOUISIANA
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2001-04-25
Citations: 808 So. 2d 572
Docket Number: No. 2000 CA 0148
Parties: Louwanna Coleman JAMES v. FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION OF LOUISIANA
Judges: Before: CARTER, C.J., GONZALES, FOGG, FITZSIMMONS, and PETTIGREW, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 808
Pages: 572–576

Head Matter:
Louwanna Coleman JAMES v. FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION OF LOUISIANA
No. 2000 CA 0148.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
April 25, 2001.
Rehearing Denied June 11, 2001.
Writ Denied Nov. 9, 2001.
Terry A. Bell, Metairie, for Plaintiff-Appellant Louwanna Coleman James.
Gayla M. Monda, Shannan Sweeney Rieger, Baton Rouge, for Defendant — Ap-pellee Formosa Plastics Corp. of Louisiana.
Before: CARTER, C.J., GONZALES, FOGG, FITZSIMMONS, and PETTIGREW, JJ.

Opinion:
| ¡.FOGG, Judge.
Plaintiff, Louwanna Coleman James, appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing her action against one defendant as abandoned pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 561. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On June 7, 1993, plaintiff brought this suit against Formosa Plastics Corporation of Louisiana, XYZ Insurance Company, and West-Paine Laboratories, Inc., claiming she sustained injuries as a result of her exposure to a hazardous material. On March 23, 1995, the trial court rendered judgment, dismissing West-Paine Laboratories. Plaintiff appealed that judgment to the First Circuit Court of Appeal, which rendered judgment on April 4, 1996. Then, plaintiff applied for a writ of certio-rari to the Louisiana Supreme Court on May 2, 1996. West-Paine Laboratories filed an opposition to the application on May 17, 1996. On November 22, 1996, the supreme court denied the application for writs. On December 12, 1996, the order denying writs was filed with the district court by the supreme court.
On June 1, 1999, Formosa filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of abandonment under LSA-C.C.P. art. 561. On September 10, 1999, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing plaintiffs claims against Formosa. Plaintiff now appeals.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561 governing abandonment, provides, in pertinent part:
A. (1) An action is abandoned when the parties fail to take any step in its prosecution or defense in the trial court for a period of three years .
Is(2) This provision shall be operative without formal order, but, on ex parte motion of any party or other interested person by affidavit which provides that no step has been taken for a period of three years in the prosecution or defense of the action, the trial court shall enter a formal order of dismissal as of the date of its abandonment. The order shall be served on the plaintiff pursuant to Article 1313 or 1314, and the plaintiff shall have thirty days from date of service to move to set aside the dismissal. However, the trial court may direct that a contradictory hearing be held prior to dismissal.
C. An appeal is abandoned when the parties fail to take any step in its prosecution or disposition for the period provided in the rules of the appellate court.
The instant case presents a procedural history not yet reviewed under these provisions. During the period that Formosa contends the claim against it was abandoned in the trial court, part of the case was on appeal. Therefore, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction over all matters reviewable under the appeal and retained jurisdiction only over those matters not reviewable under the appeal. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2088. Formosa contends, in essence, that the trial court's lack of jurisdiction over all matters in this action did not impede the running of the abandonment period as to the defendants remaining within the jurisdiction of the trial court. We disagree.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561 contains provisions that address the abandonment of an action in the trial court and the abandonment of a case on appeal, and provides differing rules for each. Section A, which applies to abandonment in the trial court, is operative when the parties to an action fail to take a step in the prosecution or defense of the action in the trial court for a period of three years. In order for the parties to fail to take an action in the trial court, they must have the power to do so. If the trial court does not have jurisdiction over the entire case, some actions on the part of some parties are precluded and possibly all actions by certain | ¿parties are precluded. Such a reading of these provisions could result in defendants remaining under the jurisdiction of the trial court benefiting from the abandonment statute to the disadvantage of other defendants who, due to an appeal, could neither prevent the abandonment nor take part in it. Such would be a clearly absurd result. Reading the statute as a whole, we find that the entire case must be within the jurisdiction of the trial court for the period of abandonment to run in the trial court. Therefore, because the provisions relating to abandonment in the trial court were inapplicable during the time the judgment dismissing West-Paine Laboratories was on appeal, the trial court erred in granting Formosa's motion to dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs are assessed against Formosa Plastics Corporation.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PETTIGREW, J., concurs in the results.
. In 1997, the Louisiana Legislature amended the abandonment statute to provide for a period of three rather than five years. The effective date of the amendment was July 1, 1998, and was specifically declared by the legislature to "apply to all pending actions." The supreme court upheld the retroactivity of the 1997 amendment in Theisges v. Boudreaux, 99-1458 (La.7/2/99), 747 So.2d 4 and Bourgeois v. Veal, 99-0786 (La.5/7/99), 740 So.2d 1291.