Court Opinion

ID: 9878863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:45:14.86372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:42.256098
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Justice, dissenting
  

   I dissent for the reasons given by Justice Weimer.
  

   Hughes, J., dissents with reasons.
  

   I respectfully dissent and would reinstate the judgment of the trial court, who in my opinion handled this matter exactly right. The Legislature was very specific in writing the law and in my opinion addresses this situation perfectly. The law allows the weeding out of frivolous claims or those interposed to delay or intimidate, and does not lead to absurd consequences.
  

   CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
  

   I agree with the majority's interpretation of La. C.C.P. article 971. I write separately to make clear that, in my view, this outcome is consistent with the intent of the legislature to make this procedure an extraordinary remedy.
   
    See
   
   La. C.C.P. art. 971 Ann., Acts 1999, No. 734, § 2 ("The legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation
   

     in matters of public significance
    

   , and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process.") (emphasis added). In the event the legislature intended otherwise, it may of course amend the article to make clear that any pleading before a judicial proceeding is, by definition, a "public issue" pursuant to C.C.P. art. 971(F)(a).