Case Name: Ginger TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Janice JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1993-04-21
Citations: 617 So. 2d 1213
Docket Number: No. 92-126
Parties: Ginger TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Janice JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before STOKER, LABORDE, THIBODEAUX, COOKS and DECUIR, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 617
Pages: 1213–1220

Head Matter:
Ginger TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Janice JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92-126.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
April 21, 1993.
Christopher J. Roy, Alexandria, for plaintiffs-appellants Ginger Taylor et al.
James Dey Kirk, Alexandria, for defendants-appellees Janice Johnson et al.
Before STOKER, LABORDE, THIBODEAUX, COOKS and DECUIR, JJ.

Opinion:
THIBODEAUX, Judge.
This is an appeal by plaintiffs, Ginger Taylor and her minor children, of a grant of exceptions of lis pendens and prescription in favor of defendants, the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety, Trooper First Class Timothy Le-det and Lieutenant J. Wayne Soileau. This appeal is concurrent with "Ginger Taylor, et al. v. Janice Johnson, et al.," bearing docket number 92-689 of this court. Decisions on the two appeals are rendered in separate opinions.
The trial judge granted the exceptions dismissing a fifth supplemental and amending petition filed by Taylor on the grounds that the same parties had litigated the same issues in a suit in Grant parish. He also dismissed the claim against Soileau because he found the amendment alleged a wholly new cause of action factually unrelated to those allegations of the original petition, warranting a grant of prescription. For the following reasons, we reverse.
FACTS
On January 16, 1988, Taylor was allegedly suffering from an abscessed tooth. Dr. B.C. Hollier, a local oral surgeon, called in a prescription for Darvon 65 compound, a schedule V narcotic, to the Wal-Mart store in Pineville, Louisiana.
That same day Taylor, accompanied by her children and mother, went to Wal-Mart to fill the prescription. Apparently, a clerk and the pharmacist on duty became suspicious of the authenticity of Taylor's prescription and called Ledet, a narcotics officer with the Louisiana State Police. Ledet arrived on the scene, attempted to reach Dr. Hollier for verification of the prescription and, when Dr. Hollier could not be reached, arrested Taylor for attempting to receive a narcotic illegally. She was taken to the parish jail but released later that evening, when contact was finally made with Dr. Hollier who authenticated the prescription.
On February 9, 1988, the original petition was filed naming only Wal-Mart and certain employees as defendants. During this same period of time, Ledet allegedly began using intimidation to gather medical and pharmaceutical information on Taylor. He supposedly shared this and other information about alleged criminal activity involving Taylor with counsel for Wal-Mart. Le-det's "investigation" eventually led to a second arrest of Taylor for illegal drug activity which took place in Grant parish on February 24, 1988.
As a result of the second arrest by Le-det, Taylor filed suit in Grant parish on July 1, 1988. That suit was filed against the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety, and Ledet. The allegations were that Ledet conducted a "witch hunt," in order to gather information to use against her. She asserted Le-det's actions were an unconstitutional invasion of privacy that led to her second unlawful arrest and amounted to an intentional or negligent infliction of emotional disturbance. This matter went to trial on February 6, and 7, 1990, with Taylor prevailing. The state is currently appealing that judgment in a separate and unrelated appeal.
A fourth supplemental and amending petition was filed in the present case, naming the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety, as a defendant liable in solido, on August 12, 1988. The fifth supplemental and amending petition was filed on April 19, 1990. It added, as individual parties, Ledet and Soileau. It alleged that, shortly after the arrest in Wal-Mart, Ledet set out to illegally obtain Taylor's medical and pharmaceutical records and then, under order of Soileau, collaborate with counsel for Wal-Mart and the other defendants by sharing the records as well as confidential police information concerning Taylor's alleged criminal activity.
Defendants filed exceptions of Ms pen-dens and prescription. A judgment granting both exceptions was signed on December 9, 1991. The trial judge issued Reasons for Judgment which stated the fifth supplemental and amending petition put forth a separate clause of action from that of the original petition and, therefore, did not relate back. Because the amended petition did not relate back, he reasoned the claims filed in the Grant parish suit were filed first. He then found the parties, the factual allegations and the causes of action in the fifth supplemental and amended petition and the claim in Grant parish to be virtually identical.
His conclusion that the amending petition failed to relate back also formed the basis for his granting Soileau's prescription exception. He found that Soileau was a new party added to a new cause of action and that the time to properly file the claim had expired.
ISSUES
There are two issues for our consideration. The first is whether the fifth supplemental and amending petition is so similar to the suit filed in Grant parish as to warrant a grant of lis pendens. The second issue is whether prescription has run on the claim against Soileau.
LAW & ANALYSIS
A. Lis Pendens
La.C.C.P. art. 531 as it existed at the time of the claim stated:
When two or more suits are pending in a Louisiana court or courts on the same cause of action, between the same parties in the same capacities, and having the same object, the defendant may have all but the first suit dismissed by excepting thereto as provided in Article 925. When the defendant does not so except, the plaintiff may continue the prosecution of any of the suits, but the first final judgment rendered shall be conclusive of all.
The trial judge found the Grant parish suit predated the filing of the fifth supplemental and amending petition because the latter failed to relate back to the date of filing of the original petition. The result of this finding, reasoned the trial judge, made the Grant parish suit the "first suit" as contemplated by La.C.C.P. art. 531. We hold this finding to be error.
As we fully explained in the companion opinion to this case, there are sufficient similarities between the alleged facts giving rise to the causes of action in the original and fifth supplemental and amending petitions to justify a relation back.
While Ledet's actions alleged in the Grant parish suit overlap those alleged in the amended petition, the tortious conduct alleged produced supposed damages in separate instances. Ledet allegedly shared criminally obtained and confidential information with Wal-Mart's counsel to further exacerbate the damages arising from the first arrest. Ledet also allegedly gathered this information to accumulate evidence to justify the second arrest.
The allegations in the fifth supplemental and amending petition relate back to the original petition because they concern facts and issues surrounding the first arrest. Because it relates back, the Grant parish suit is not the "first suit" as required by Article 531 and, consequently, lis pendens is not proper to preempt the progression of the present case.
Furthermore, we are not convinced of the identical nature of the causes of actions in both claims. For purposes of Ms pendens, "cause of action" is the grounds upon which demand is based. Lamb v. Lamb, 411 So.2d 1 (La.1982); Mitchell v. Bertolla, 340 So.2d 287 (La.1976). The causes of action alleged in the respective pleadings, when carefully scrutinized, are separate and distinct.
The Grant parish suit singles out the actions of Ledet. The factual allegations create an image of a vindictive police officer gathering evidence against Taylor to justify a second arrest. Her claimed damages stem from his efforts to gather the information and the events surrounding the second arrest.
The fifth amending and supplemental petition raises allegations of collusion and invasion of privacy surrounding the sharing of the information obtained by Ledet with Wal-Mart's counsel. The collusion was for the supposed purpose of gathering evidence to defeat the first suit. It is a claim with no relation to the arrest in Grant parish other than Ledet was an active participant in both. There is an overlap of evidence, as Ledet's actions of gathering information illegally factor into both claims. However, it is but one factor utilized to complete the picture of the alleged collusion.
Neither the overlap of evidence nor the introduction of certain evidence regarding the alleged collusion in the Grant parish trial was sufficient for lis pendens. Such evidence was not offered in that trial to prove any damages resulting from the first arrest or to prove collusion on the part of Ledet or the State resulting in the second arrest. While the same evidence may be introduced at the Rapides parish trial, it will be for more substantive purposes and does not amount to a re-litigation of the Grant parish claim. The judgment granting the exception of lis pendens is reversed.
B. Prescription
The second issue concerns the granting of the exception of prescription. The trial judge granted the exception in favor of all parties and specifically dismissed the claim as to Soileau. The trial judge granted the prescription because he felt the allegations of the fifth supplemental and amending petition were factually unrelated to the allegations of the original petition and gave rise to separate and distinct causes of action. We fully addressed this issue in reversing a grant of prescription in favor of Wal-Mart and two of its employees in the companion opinion in this case. For the same reasons, we hold the grant of prescription to be error in the present case.
La.C.C.P. art. 1153 states:
When the action asserted in the amended petition or answer arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of filing the original pleading.
Separate causes of action in and of themselves may not be sufficient to justify a grant of prescription. An amended petition may relate back for prescription purposes even if the facts alleged, constituting defendants' wrong, differ enough to form two causes of actions, but where the actions creating the duties are sufficiently similar. Gunter v. Plauche, 439 So.2d 437 (La.1983).
Furthermore, in order to protect defendants from prejudice in preparing defenses, statutes of liberative prescription are strictly construed. Parker v. Southern American Ins. Co., 590 So.2d 55 (La. 1991). The crucial focus in determining whether or not a grant of prescription is warranted is on "notice" to the named defendants. Notice allows the defendants to preserve evidence and properly prepare a defense. Comeaux v. Poindexter, 527 So.2d 1184 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988); Baker v. Payne & Keller of La., Inc., 390 So.2d 1272 (La.1980); Amendment of Pleadings in Louisiana, 43 Tul.L.Rev. 233 (1969).
Thus, in order for the fifth supplemental and amending petition to relate back, there must be some factual connexity between its allegations and those of the original pleadings, and the named defendants must have had sufficient notice of the allegations to preserve evidence and prepare a defense. We believe those requirements have been met.
The fifth supplemental and amending petition alleges a collaboration by defendants already named in the suit, Ledet and Soi-leau, for the purpose of preparing a de fense to the claims arising from the first arrest. Taylor claims Ledet shared illegally obtained and confidential information with the other defendants. The tortious conduct is alleged to have worsened the emotional damage incurred in the initial arrest. These new allegations relate facts precipitated by and directly related to the original offense. There is a factual con-nexity between the acts to justify a relation back.
Furthermore, a claim that notice was insufficient cannot be maintained. The parties allegedly committed the tortious conduct in the fifth supplemental and amending petition while gathering evidence and preparing a defense against the original pleading. It is illogical to argue that defendants are not prepared to defend against allegations arising from acts committed in preparing a defense. Defendants are not prejudiced by allowing the amendment.
Finally, the dismissal against Soi-leau is also in error. The trial judge dismissed Soileau on grounds that he was a new party added in a new claim well after it had prescribed. Again, the emphasis on a grant of prescription, particularly where a new party is added, is on notice and to what degree that party's defense will be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed to relate back.
For notice purposes, it must be determined if his relationship to any of the named defendants was close enough to imply that he was aware of the suit and the possibility of his personal involvement. The relationship is obvious. Soileau is a Louisiana State Trooper and a commanding officer of Ledet who allegedly ordered Le-det to cooperate with counsel for Wal-Mart in preparing a defense against the very suit from which he seeks dismissal. We believe this is a sufficiently close relationship to imply notice on his part.
He is also sued as a solidary obligor. He is being asked to personally respond to the complaints against him. It is a long standing principle of law that a timely suit against one solidary obligor interrupts prescription as to all. LSA-C.C. art. 1799.
We see no reason why this rule should not apply to the suit against Soileau. Consequently, the grant of exception of prescription against Soileau is reversed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court granting the exceptions of lis pendens and prescription, and dismissing the suit against the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public Safety, and Trooper First Class Timothy Ledet and Lieutenant J. Wayne Soileau is reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this ruling. Costs are charged to appellees.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LABORDE, J., concurs in the result.
STOKER, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.