203 So. 3d 479
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On April 13, 2010 plaintiffs were injured in an automobile accident; they first sued in federal court on April 11, 2011 alleging diversity jurisdiction against Annie Crowe and Shelter Mutual.
- Crowe moved to dismiss in federal court claiming she was a Louisiana resident when the federal complaint was filed; the federal court denied the 12(b)(1) motion, finding a factual dispute about Crowe’s domicile and leaving jurisdictional discovery open.
- Plaintiffs filed the present state-court action on June 28, 2012; the federal case was dismissed by consent on July 11, 2012 (dismissal without prejudice reserving state-court rights).
- Defendants raised a peremptory exception of prescription in state court, arguing the state suit was filed after the one-year prescriptive period and that the earlier federal filing did not interrupt prescription because the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the prescription exception (relying on the pending federal action to interrupt prescription) and later entered judgment for plaintiffs; defendants’ motion for new trial was denied.
- On appeal the court affirmed: it held the federal suit, having not been adjudicated to lack jurisdiction at the time the state suit was filed, interrupted prescription and the state suit was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal filing interrupted prescription under La. Civ. Code art. 3462 | Federal filing was in a (presumptively) competent court and remained pending until July 11, 2012, so it interrupted prescription and the state suit (filed June 28, 2012) was timely | Federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction at filing (Crowe a Louisiana domiciliary), so the federal court was not a court of competent jurisdiction and its filing did not interrupt prescription | Held: Because federal court had denied Crowe’s 12(b)(1) motion and had not been adjudicated to lack jurisdiction when the state suit was filed, the federal filing interrupted prescription and the state suit was timely. |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to determine Crowe’s domicile at trial for prescription purposes | Plaintiffs relied on the prior federal ruling and the timing of the voluntary dismissal; no further inquiry was required | Defendants argued trial court should have determined domicile and admitted proffered evidence to decide interruption | Held: Trial court did not err; its prior rulings and the federal court’s denial of dismissal supported interruption and exclusion of repetitive evidence was within discretion. |
| Whether the denial of defendants’ motion for new trial was erroneous | Plaintiffs: no grounds under La. C.C.P. arts. 1972/1973 to grant new trial; judgment was supported by law and evidence | Defendants: newly proffered evidence (Crowe’s domicile) warranted new trial and dismissal on prescription grounds | Held: No abuse of discretion; motion for new trial denied. |
| Standard of review for prescription findings when evidence is/ is not introduced | Plaintiffs: where federal court ruling existed, legal conclusion supports de novo review | Defendants: factual issues (domicile) required manifest error review if evidence considered | Held: Court applied de novo review to legal conclusion that federal suit interrupted prescription and found no manifest error in facts as presented. |
Key Cases Cited
- Raborn v. Albea, 144 So.3d 1066 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (one-year liberative prescription for delictual actions).
- Glasgow v. PAR Minerals Corp., 70 So.3d 765 (La. 2011) (a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is not a court of competent jurisdiction).
- White v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 878 So.2d 786 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (trial court must inquire into whether a prior federal filing was in a competent court before ruling on prescription).
- Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So.3d 991 (La. 2010) (party pleading prescription generally bears the burden of proof).