Court Opinion

ID: 9947873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 20:06:47.526306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:39.090640
License: Public Domain

RONATA         LLOPIS                                                                             NO.         2024          CW        0015

VERSUS                                                                                                          PAGE           1    OF     2

ALLSTATE            PROPERTY           AND
CASUALTY            INSURANCE             COMPANY
 IN     ITS     CAPACITY             AS
UNINSURED/ UNDERINSURED
MOTORIST            CARRIER)          AND       USAA
CASUALTY            INSURANCE             COMPANY
 IN     ITS     CAPACITY             AS
UNINSURED/ UNDERINSURED
MOTORIST            CARRIER)                                                                        MARCH                5,        2024

In     Re:           Ronata           Llopis,           applying           for                                      writs,               22nd
                                                                                      supervisory
                     Judicial              District          Court,         Parish           of     St.            Tammany,                No.
                     202211387.

BEFORE:             MCCLENDON,               CHUTZ,       HESTER,          MILLER,          AND     STROMBERG,                      JJ.

         WRIT        DENIED.               In    response           to,     and       less        than         a    week            after,
an     ex      parte          order                          Plaintiff             leave                    file            its
                                           granting                                               to                                    First
Supplemental                   and
                                       Amending           Petition              for        Damages,            USAA              filed           a
 Motion             to        Object         and        Alternative               Motion            to         Strike                   First
Supplemental                  and     Amending            Petition           for        Damages."                  A        motion             to
strike         is        an     appropriate              vehicle           to     address               an "        insufficient
demand."                 See     La.        Code        Civ.        P.      art.           964.          The           demand              was
insufficient                  insofar        as    it     was       filed        without          the        consent                of     the
opposing            party        and       without        the       contradictory                 motion            required                   by
La.      Code        Civ.        P.        art.     1155,           and     a     motion           to                              is
                                                                                                             strike                        the
appropriate               vehicle            to                           the                               See
                                                   challenge
                                                                                      filing.                          Roberts                 v.

Murphy Oil Corp.,                      577       So. 2d      308,        313 (    La.       App.        4th        Cir.),             writs
denied,         580        So. 2d         670,     673 (      La.        1991);         see       also         Succession
                                                                                                                      ion                      of
Serpas,             2016- 257,              2016- 258,              2016- 259 (             La.                             5th          Cir.
                                                                                                        App.
9/ 28/ 16),          2016       WL     5404415, *          4- 5 (    unpublished).                      A    decision                 as       to
whether         to       grant         leave       to     supplement              a                           is
                                                                                        pleading                        within             the
sound         discretion              of    the     trial       court           and        shall        not        be       disturbed
absent         an    abuse of that discretion.    Palowsky                                        v.        Cork,           2019- 0148
 La.         App.     1st Cir.  5/ 20/ 20), 304 So. 3d 867,                                         875.            We        find         the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering its ex
parte         order            and     denying            Plaintiff              leave        to         file            its          First
Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages.

                                                                WRC
                                                                SMM
                                                                TPS

         McClendon,              J.,       dissents.            A    motion           to     strike            is       a     means            of

cleaning            up    the       pleadings,            not    a       means
                                                                                      of    eliminating                     causes             of
action        or     substantive                allegations.               Cole        v.    Cole,           2018- 0523 (                  La.
App.     lst        Cir.        9/ 21/ 18) ,       264       So. 3d        537,       544.         Motions                  to      strike

are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.                                                                        Id.          The
proper         procedural              vehicle          to      seek       review           of     the         trial               court'       s
interlocutory                  ruling           granting        Plaintiff              leave        of       court               to      file
an     amended            and        supplemental               petition              was     an        application                        for
supervisory               writ.            See    Waiters           v.    deVille,            2020- 0556 (                    La.        App.
                                                                                     NO.     2024    CW       0015

                                                                                              PAGE       2   OF    2

4th     Cir.     12/ 30/ 20) ,        365    So. 3d      544,    writ      denied,       2021- 00283 (            La.
4/   13/ 21),         313     So. 3d        1249;        see    also       Allstate         Ins.        Co.        V.

Mohamadian,             2009- 1126 (         La.     App.       1st    Cir.       2/ 17/ 10),       35        So. 3d
1118,       1120.       Accordingly,        I would deny USAA' s motion to strike,
as    it    is procedurally             improper and USAA failed to file a timely
writ       application          to     seek         review      of    the     trial        court'   s        ruling
granting          Plaintiff           leave         of    court       to     file      an     amended             and

supplemental            petition.

           Hester,      J.,    dissents        and would grant              the   writ      application.

COURT      OF APPEAL,          FIRST    CIRCUIT

       DUTY           CLERK OF COURT
                FOR   THE     COURT