Case Name: Thomas Richard BRISTER a/k/a Rickey Brister, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANVILLE FOREST PRODUCTS, et al., Defendant-Appellee; Jimmy Don Harmon, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manville Forest Products, et al., Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1999-12-15
Citations: 749 So. 2d 881
Docket Number: Nos. 32,386-CA, 32,387-CA
Parties: Thomas Richard BRISTER a/k/a Rickey Brister, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANVILLE FOREST PRODUCTS, et al., Defendant-Appellee. Jimmy Don Harmon, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manville Forest Products, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NORRIS, C.J., and STEWART, CARAWAY, PEATROSS and DREW, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 749
Pages: 881–886

Head Matter:
Thomas Richard BRISTER a/k/a Rickey Brister, et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANVILLE FOREST PRODUCTS, et al., Defendant-Appellee. Jimmy Don Harmon, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manville Forest Products, et al., Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 32,386-CA, 32,387-CA.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1999.
Caffery, Oubre, Dugas & Campbell by Michael M. Caffery, New Iberia, Counsel for Appellee, H.B. Zachry.
Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins & Burr by Larry M. Canada and Brynn M. Baiam-onte, New Orleans, Counsel for Appellant, Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Before NORRIS, C.J., and STEWART, CARAWAY, PEATROSS and DREW, JJ.

Opinion:
JjNORRIS, Chief Judge.
Combustion Engineering, Inc., ABB Combustion Systems and ABB, Inc., third party plaintiffs, appeal a judgment of dismissal for abandonment filed by third party defendants, H.B. Zachry Company. We reverse and remand.
Facts
Combustion Engineering Canada, Inc., Combustion Engineering Inc, and ABB Combustion, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Combustion") and H.B. Zachry Company (Zachry) were retained by Manville Forest Products Corp. (now Riverwood International Corp.) to construct a boiler for a paper mill. The boiler was powered by natural gas; the natural gas system within the boiler was vented on the roof of the boiler through a perpendicular pipe ending in an inverted "U" shape. On April 16, 1990, Zaehry's employees Ricky Brister, Jimmy Harmon, and Mike Rawls were ordered to the roof to remove a temporary steam blow line by cutting it with an acetylene torch. At the same time, the boiler was being tested to see if it would fire and function as designed. The test required the venting of the natural gas through the pipe, which due to the design was vented near the men who were working with an open flame. When the natural gas was vented and came into contact with the open flame, an explosion and fire occurred, resulting in physical injury to Brister and Harmon.
Brister and Harmon filed suit against Riverwood and Combustion. The suits were consolidated and removed to the federal district court on May 17, 1991, where Combustion filed an impleader (third party demand) against Zachry. The case was remanded to the state court on December 29, 1992. The principal demands filed by Brister and Harmon were settled; Combustion reserved its rights against Zachry pursuant to a partial dismissal filed on August 3, 1994. On July 2, 1996, counsel for Combustion (through ABB's attorney) sent a letter to counsel for Zachry, expressing his desire to complete the last half of Zachry's corporate 1 ^deposition and set the matter for trial. Attached to the letter was a notice of intent to conduct the deposition on August 5, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. in New Orleans. The letter did go on to state that if counsel for Zachry "should wish to conduct [the] deposition at a differ ent place, date or time," to advise him. Counsel for Zachry responded by letter dated August 2, 1996, stating that he had been unable to make the arrangements with a Zachry representative to "respond to your notice of 1442 deposition" and would get back in touch with counsel for Combustion "within the next week or so with a date, time and place" to complete the deposition. Thereafter, because the deposition was not completed, counsel for Combustion filed another notice of deposition on July 17, 1998 for the same deposition to be conducted August 31, 1998 in New Orleans; this notice was filed in the record. To this notice, Zachry responded with a motion for dismissal on the basis of abandonment, asserting that no action in prosecution or defense had taken place for a period in excess of three years.
The 1996 notice of deposition, though mailed to opposing counsel, was not filed into the record until September 16, 1998, pursuant to the district court's request. (Rp. 843-344). Finding that no notice of deposition was ever filed or produced, the district court granted the motion to dismiss.
Law and Analysis
"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." La. C.C.P. art. 561. The policy underlying this requirement is to prevent protracted litigation which is filed for purposes of harassment or without serious intent to hasten the claim to judgment. Viesel v. Republic Ins. Co., 95-0244 (La.App. 4th Cir.11/30/95), 665 So.2d 1221, writ denied 95-3099 (La.2/16/96), 667 So.2d 1058. UHowever, the law favors, and justice requires, that an action be maintained whenever possible so that the aggrieved party has his day in court. Jones v. Phelps, 95 0607 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/9/95), 665 So.2d 30, writ denied 95-2907 (La.2/2/96), 666 So.2d 1104. Article 561 is to be liberally interpreted and any action or step taken to move the case toward judgment should be considered; article 561 was not intended to dismiss those cases in which the plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that he does not intend to abandon the action. Id; Viesel v. Republic Ins. Co., supra; Sullivan v. Cabral, 32,454 (La.App.2d Cir.10/27/99), 745 So.2d 791.
Prior to the 1997 amendment to art. 561, to interrupt the tolling of the time period for abandonment, the "step" in the prosecution must have been filed in the record. Chevron Oil Co. v. Traigle, 436 So.2d 530 (La.1983). What constituted a "step" in the prosecution included anything which was designed to hasten a case to trial. See Shulver v. Slocum, 566 So.2d 1089 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied 569 So.2d 984 (1990) (a letter by plaintiffs attorney requesting service of process upon one of the defendants constituted a step in prosecution); Parson v. Daigle, 96 2569 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/29/97), 708 So.2d 746 (motion to substitute counsel is not considered a step in the prosecution of an action). A notice of intent to take a deposition, when filed in the record, was considered a step in the prosecution of an action; a notice initiated the deposition and a deposition moved litigation toward conclusion. Highlands Ins. Co. v. City of Lafayette, 453 So.2d 608 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied 458 So.2d 119 (1984); Viesel v. Republic Ins. Co., supra.
The 1997 amendment to Article 561 added paragraph B, which provides that "[a]ny formal discovery as authorized by this Code and served on all parties, whether or not filed of record . shall be deemed to be a step in the prosecution or defense of an action." The absence of a filing requirement is underscored by art. 1474 which authorizes service by mail of discovery notices in accordance with art. 1313 and states that "[t]he serving of any discovery materials pursuant to . this Article shall be considered a step in the prosecution or Udefense of an action for purposes of Art. 561, notwithstanding that such discovery materials are not filed in the record of the proceeding." La. C.C.P. art. 1474 C(4). This includes the service of notices. La. C.C.P. art. 1474 A.
Of course, before a party may take a deposition, he must give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. La. C.C.P. art. 1438. A pleading may, under an express provision of law, be served by mail, but the party making such service must file a certificate in the record of the manner in which service was made. La. C.C.P. art. 1313. In Charpentier v. Goudeau, 95-2357 (La.App. 4th Cir.3/14/96), 671 So.2d 981, the court held that if the party properly mailed an interrogatory to another party, the failure to file in the record an art. 1313 certification did not render the service ineffective; such service still constitutes a step in the prosecution and averted a dismissal for abandonment.
As noted, prior to the 1997 amendment of art. 561, filing a notice of deposition in the record was considered a step in the prosecution. Viesel, supra; Highlands, supra. Article 561 now treats any formal discovery as a step in the prosecution, whether or not filed in the record, provided it has been served on all parties. A notice of deposition served on the adverse party by mail is formal discovery. The District Court was plainly wrong in finding that Combustion's failure to file the 1996 notice of the deposition into the record amounted to abandonment. In point of fact, Zachry's reply of August 2 shows that the notice was sufficiently served on Zachry to satisfy article 1313. Moreover, failure to file the certification of the manner service was made does not defeat the validity of the notice. Charpen-tier, supra. The letter with the notice, received by Zachry, clearly expressed Combustion's intent to hasten the matter to judgment.
|KAs such, the District Court erred in concluding that Combustion's actions in July 1996 did not constitute a step in the prosecution. The judgment of dismissal will be reversed.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the judgment dismissing the third party plaintiffs' demands is reversed. Costs are assessed to H.B. Zachry Inc.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CARAWAY, J., dissents with written reasons.
PEATROSS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by CARAWAY, J.
. This article was amended in 1997 to change the time period required to take action from five years to three.