331 So.3d 351
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Amanda and Anthony Landry were divorced and set a community property partition trial for October 14, 2020.
- Anthony’s new counsel, Charles E. Griffin, enrolled in August 2020 and filed an ex parte Motion for Continuance on October 12, 2020, claiming a scheduling conflict in the 19th JDC.
- The Motion for Continuance was not provided to opposing counsel in advance; Griffin did not appear on October 14 in the partition case and also failed to appear in Baton Rouge as claimed.
- The trial court continued the partition without date and barred further pleadings pending rescheduling; Landry moved for sanctions under La. C.C.P. art. 863.
- After a hearing the trial court found Griffin violated article 863 and ordered him to pay $2,575 in attorney fees and costs; Griffin appealed and Landry answered seeking additional fees.
- The First Circuit affirmed the sanctions award and denied Landry’s request for appellate frivolous-appeal damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Landry) | Defendant's Argument (Griffin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Griffin’s Motion for Continuance violated La. C.C.P. art. 863 | Motion was filed improperly (ex parte), contained misrepresentations about a conflict, caused delay and prejudice | Motion was filed for a legitimate scheduling conflict with the 19th JDC | Court held Griffin violated art. 863: Motion was ex parte, misrepresented conflict, and Griffin failed to appear |
| Whether sanctions were authorized and appropriate | Requested sanctions (fees/costs) for unnecessary delay and misconduct | Opposed sanctions, disputed factual basis for alleged misrepresentation | Court held sanctions mandatory upon finding a violation; $2,575 in fees/costs was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the appeal is frivolous so as to warrant additional fees | Answer argued appeal was frivolous and costly to appellee | Griffin maintained positions were seriously and reasonably advocated on appeal | Court held appeal was not frivolous; denied additional damages for frivolous appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Droddy v. Porter, 292 So. 3d 925 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2019) (attorney’s duty to make objectively reasonable inquiry under art. 863)
- Sanchez v. Libertloyds, 672 So. 2d 268 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1996) (test what was reasonable to believe when pleading was submitted)
- Tubbs v. Tubbs, 700 So. 2d 941 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997) (art. 863 intended for exceptional circumstances; slight justification defeats sanctions)
- Stroscher v. Stroscher, 845 So. 2d 518 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (standard of review: manifest error for finding violation; abuse of discretion for sanction amount)
- Dubois v. Brown, 818 So. 2d 864 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2002) (sanctions aim to correct litigation abuse; factors to consider in sanction amount)
- Sternberg v. Sternberg, 695 So. 2d 1068 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1997) (improper continuance filings and delay can warrant sanctions)
- Canik v. Su Casa Builder, LLC, 317 So. 3d 690 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2020) (standard for awarding damages for frivolous appeal)