175 So. 3d 1014
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Eleven former RCC inmates sued after a 2012 van collision driven by defendant Cary Duncan, alleging injuries and inadequate post-accident care and punishment by jail staff.
- Plaintiffs requested personal service on Duncan at his workplace, but Duncan no longer worked at RCC; service was not effected within the court-ordered 30-day cure period.
- Defendants served discovery in May 2013; plaintiffs did not respond. Defendants moved to compel; plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear at the October 30, 2013 hearing. The court ordered discovery responses within 45 days and warned dismissal was possible.
- Duncan filed a second exception of insufficiency of service; the trial court sustained it and dismissed Duncan after plaintiffs failed to timely cure.
- For continuing discovery noncompliance, the trial court dismissed the entire lawsuit with prejudice on June 3, 2014, awarded defendants $1,500 in attorney’s fees for the motion to compel, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of Duncan for insufficiency of service violated plaintiffs’ rights | Plaintiffs say they attempted timely service and were impeded by sheriff’s error; dismissal was too harsh | Duncan argued plaintiffs failed to comply with the court order to personally serve him within 30 days as required by art. 932 | Affirmed — dismissal proper where plaintiffs failed to cure within the ordered delay under LSA-C.C.P. art. 932 |
| Whether dismissal of the entire action for failure to respond to discovery was excessive | Plaintiffs argued this was the first discovery order and failure to comply did not warrant dismissal; alternatively, they claim they did comply | Defendants argued plaintiffs wilfully ignored discovery and court orders; dismissal is authorized under art. 1471 | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; art. 1471 permits dismissal for failure to obey discovery orders |
| Whether attorney’s fees for motion to compel were improper | Plaintiffs implicitly contested sanctions as inequitable | Defendants sought fees under art. 1471(C) for plaintiffs’ failure to obey discovery orders | Affirmed — court properly awarded reasonable fees ($1,500) under its discovery sanction authority |
| Whether denial of new trial was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiffs argued judgment was contrary to law/evidence and inequitable | Defendants argued sanctions and dismissal were within court discretion given noncompliance | Affirmed — appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. LSU/EA Conway Medical Center, 46 So.3d 205 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for denial of new trial; abuse of discretion)
- Drapcho v. Drapcho, 928 So.2d 559 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (discussing new trial review)
- Burst v. Bd. of Com’rs, Port of New Orleans, 646 So.2d 955 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (definition of capricious and arbitrary decision)
- Horton v. McCary, 635 So.2d 199 (La. 1994) (severity of sanctions for refusal to comply with court-ordered discovery)
- MTU of North America, Inc. v. Raven Marine, Inc., 475 So.2d 1063 (La. 1985) (distinction between failure to comply with discovery and disobedience of court-ordered discovery)
- Hatfield v. Hatfield, 155 So.3d 70 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2014) (trial court discretion in discovery sanctions)
- L & M Hair Products, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Transp. and Dev., 704 So.2d 415 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (sanctions review and discretion)