307 So.3d 335
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff filed a medical-malpractice petition on Sept. 10, 2019 naming Dr. Cathy Swain‑Jones among other defendants and alleged Swain‑Jones had relocated to Abu Dhabi; plaintiff asked that service on Swain‑Jones be "temporarily" withheld and provided no address.
- Under La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C), service must be requested within 90 days of filing; the deadline here was Dec. 10, 2019.
- Plaintiff did not request service on Swain‑Jones within 90 days; no timely long‑arm service, no request to the medical‑panel counsel for an address or waiver, and no curator appointment request was made.
- Plaintiff later produced two undated internet screenshots (state medical board directory and a business listing) but did not admit those exhibits into evidence or show they were created within the 90‑day period.
- The trial court denied Swain‑Jones’s exception of insufficiency of service and motion for involuntary dismissal; the Fifth Circuit granted writ, found no good cause, reversed, and dismissed the claims against Swain‑Jones without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff showed "good cause" for failing to request service within 90 days under La. C.C.P. art. 1672(C) | Good cause existed because Swain‑Jones was believed to be living/working in an unknown location in UAE, making service impracticable | No good cause: plaintiff made no timely attempts to locate or serve Swain‑Jones, did not contact prior medical‑panel counsel, and produced only undated internet searches | No good cause shown; exception sustained and dismissal without prejudice ordered |
| Whether undated internet screenshots/supporting exhibits could establish good cause | The internet searches show inability to locate a current address | Exhibits were undated and not admitted into evidence; even if considered, they post‑dated the 90‑day period and did not prove diligence | Court could not rely on unadmitted or untimely internet evidence; such searches did not establish good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Louisiana State University Medical Center-Shreveport, 841 So.2d 725 (La. 2003) (La. Supreme Court requires strict construction of good‑cause exception to C.C.P. art. 1672)
- Norbert v. Loucks, 791 So.2d 1283 (La. 2001) (mere confusion or inadvertence by counsel does not constitute good cause)
- Johnson v. University Medical Center in Lafayette, 968 So.2d 724 (La. 2007) (reaffirming strict application of good‑cause requirement)
- Corbin v. Louisiana Department of Highways, 26 So.3d 945 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2009) (trial court’s finding of good cause is a factual question reviewed for manifest error)
- Quinn v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, 118 So.3d 1011 (La. 2012) (appellate courts may not consider exhibits not admitted into evidence)
- Davis v. Caraway, 164 So.3d 223 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (discussing manifest‑error review of good‑cause findings)