Court Opinion

ID: 9379779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 15:05:24.92474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.347590
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                 COURT OF APPEAL

                                  FIRST CIRCUIT

                                     2022 CA 0290

                                 JOHN LAMARTINA

                                       VERSUS

          WYNNE, GOUX & LOBELLO, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, L.L.C.,
                         VINCENT F. WYNNE, JR.,
                                            ESQ. AND
                            SHANNON K. LOWRY, ESQ.

                                             Judgment Rendered:     MAR 16 2023

   APPEALED FROM THE TWENTY- SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
                   IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
                                STATE OF LOUISIANA
                           DOCKET NUMBER 2017- 10319

            HONORABLE WILLIAM H. BURRIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

  John LaMartina                             Plaintiff A
                                                       - ppellant
  New Orleans, Louisiana                     Pro -Se

  Gus A. Fritchie, III                       Attorney for Defendants -Appellees
  New Orleans, Louisiana                     Wynne, Goux & Lobello, Attorneys at
                                             Law, L.L. C., Vincent F. Wynne, Jr.,
                                             and Shannon K. Lowry

          BEFORE:        McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ.

e,  t
  r,—
                                 A
 MVO&       J-).
                     0 1\ OWJ
GREENE, J.

        This is an appeal from a judgment that dismissed all of the plaintiff' s claims

on the grounds of abandonment.        For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal

and remand the case for further proceedings.

                     FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        The plaintiff, John LaMartina, filed a legal malpractice action against Wynne,

Goux & Lobello, Attorneys at Law, LLC, Vincent F. Wynne, Jr., and Shannon K,

Lowry ( the   defendants)   on January 20, 2017.            Mr. LaMartina alleged that the

defendants had failed to properly appeal the dismissal of his claims related to the

ownership     of a   promissory     note   and       mortgage.   See   Lake   Villas   No.   II

Homeowners'       Assn, Inc.   v.    Elisa LaMartina, 2015- 0244 ( La.          App. 1 Cir.

12/ 23/ 15), 2015 WL 9435193, writ denied, 2016- 0149 ( La. 3114116), 189 So. 3d

1070. The defendants filed an answer on March 20, 2017.

        The defendants filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of

peremption on September 22, 2017, maintaining that more than one year had passed

from the dismissal of the appeal and that the matter was barred by the passage of

time.    The hearing on the exception raising the objection of peremption was

rescheduled several times because the defendants were unable to successfully serve

Mr. LaMartina with notice of the hearing, despite numerous attempts by the St.

Tammany Parish Sheriffs Office and the subsequent appointment of a private

process server.

        On March 15, 2021, the defendants filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the suit

without prejudice on the grounds of abandonment pursuant to La. C. C. P. art. 561.

The defendants maintained that the suit was abandoned as of March 6, 2021. The

defendants attached the affidavit of Gus A. Fritchie, IIl, their attorney, averring that

that the last formal action in the case occurred on March 6, 2018, when Mr. Fritchie

requested that the district court remove the hearing of the defendants' peremptory

                                                 2
exception raising the objection of peremption from the district court' s docket. Mr.

LaMartina filed an opposition to the motion for dismissal. The district court set the

                                          1
motion to dismiss for a hearing.

        The hearing was held on October 8, 2021.                   Mr. LaMartina did not appear at

the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court found that the matter

was abandoned; however, no judgment was signed at that time. Mr. LaMartina filed

a " MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND RESET HEARING" on November 10, 2021.

The district court signed a judgment on November 29, 2021, dismissing all of Mr.

LaMartina' s claims on the grounds of abandonment. Mr. LaMartina appealed that

judgment. No ruling was made on Mr. LaMartina' s motion to reconsider the matter.

                                              DISCUSSION

        The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for a motion to

reconsider with respect to any final judgment, and such a motion is generally treated

as a motion for new trial.         See Whitney Bank v. Rayford, 2021- 0406 ( La. App. 1

Cir. 1219121), 332 So. 3d 1243, 1247 n. 5.

        Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 561( A)(4) provides that a motion

to set aside an order of dismissal, rather than a motion for new trial or a motion to

reconsider, may be filed only within thirty days of the date of the sheriffs service of

the order of dismissal. It is evident from Mr. LaMartina' s motion that he sought to

reverse the order of dismissal for abandonment; thus, we treat the motion as a

motion to set aside the order of dismissal pursuant to Article 561( A)(4).                           See La.

Code Civ. P.        art.   865; Dougherty v. Dougherty, 2021- 0433 (                    La.   App.     1 Cir.

3129/ 22),   341 So. 3d 669, 675 ( Every pleading is to be so construed to do substantial

1 We note that La. C. C. P. art. 561( A)( 1) provides that an action is abandoned when the parties fail to take
any steps in the prosecution or defense in the trial court for a period of three years, with exceptions that do
not apply herein. Further, La. C. C. P. art. 561( A)(3) provides that 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 timely taken 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 sheriff shall serve the order in the manner
provided in Article 1314, and shall execute a return pursuant to Article 1292. La. C. C. P. art. 561( A)(3).

                                                       91
justice, and regardless of the parties'             interpretation of the caption of a party' s

pleading, courts will look to the import of a pleading and will not be bound by its

title.)
          The hearing on the motion to set aside the dismissal is a contradictory hearing

wherein the plaintiff must produce evidence as to why the order of dismissal should

not be set aside.     BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Louis, 2020-0717 ( La. App.

1 Cir. 5113121), 326 So. 3d 904, 909.

          As   the   district   court   has   not    ruled   on   the   outstanding   motion   for

reconsideration/ motion to set aside the order dismissing the case on the grounds of

abandonment, the appeal is premature. Thus, the appeal is dismissed and we remand

the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                         CONCLUSION

          For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the

district court. Despite his pauper status, the costs of this appeal are assessed to John

LaMartina. See La. C. C.P. arts. 2164 and 5188.

          APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.

                                                    4
                                  STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                    COURT OF APPEAL

                                     FIRST CIRCUIT

                                      2022 CA 0290

I"*                                 JOHN LAMARTINA

                                         VERSUS

  WYNNE, GOUK, & LOBELLO, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, L. L. C., VINCENT F. WYNNE,
                       JR.,   ESQ., AND SHANNON K. LOWRY, ESQ.

  McClendon, J., concurring.

         Given the unique and convoluted procedural posture of this case, I concur in the

  dismissal of the appeal.