David v. David, 157 So. 3d 1164

Richard and Dione David divorced after a 36-year marriage; the trial court entered a multi-day judgment partitioning community property, including businesses and real estate.
On appeal this court amended and affirmed the partition; Richard’s further applications to rehear and to the Louisiana Supreme Court were denied, but subsequent collateral and related litigation continued.
Richard filed a Petition for Action of Nullity (Dec. 2013) claiming deprivation of legal rights, statutory errors, failure to account for evidence, and payment/IRA allocation issues.
A hearing on the nullity petition was set for April 1, 2014; on March 31 Richard filed a motion to recuse the trial judge alleging bias, which the judge denied without a hearing.
Neither Richard nor his counsel appeared at the April 1 nullity hearing; the court dismissed the petition with prejudice under La. C.C.P. art. 1672 and awarded sanctions (attorney fees) against Richard and his lawyer.
On appeal the appellate court affirmed denial of recusal and the dismissal with prejudice, but reversed the sanctions award and remanded for a sanctions hearing because Richard and counsel had no opportunity to be heard on sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Richard)	Defendant's Argument (Dione)	Held
Whether the judge should have been recused	Judge was biased/prejudiced by prior rulings and actions	Recusal motion is conclusory and stems from adverse rulings; no extrajudicial bias shown	Denial of recusal affirmed
Whether dismissal of nullity petition was proper for plaintiff's failure to appear	Dismissal was improper (argues error)	Plaintiff and counsel failed to appear despite notice; dismissal proper under art. 1672	Dismissal with prejudice affirmed
Whether sanctions under La. C.C.P. art. 863 were properly imposed	Sanctions were improper or procedurally defective	Sanctions appropriate because pleading was frivolous	Sanctions reversed; remanded for a hearing on sanctions
Whether plaintiff had due process before sanctions were imposed	Lack of notice and opportunity to be heard on sanctions	Sanctions requested at hearing and may be justified even if asserted orally	Court required a hearing; due process error found as to sanctions

Covington v. McNeese State Univ., 32 So.3d 223 (La. 2010) (bias must be substantial and not conclusory)
Southern Casing of La., Inc. v. Houma Avionics, Inc., 809 So.2d 1040 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (recusal standards)
Earles v. Ahlstedt, 591 So.2d 741 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991) (adverse rulings alone do not show bias)
Augman v. City of Morgan City, 864 So.2d 248 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2003) (extrajudicial bias required for recusal)
Jackson v. Royal Ins. Co., 704 So.2d 424 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1997) (review standard for dismissal when plaintiff fails to appear)
Richardson v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 953 So.2d 836 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (art. 863 sanctions for frivolous pleadings)
Acosta v. B & B Oilfield Servs., Inc., 91 So.3d 1263 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2012) (standards of review for sanctions and amount)
Cox v. O’Brien, 147 So.3d 809 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2014) (discussing due process when sanctions awarded at same hearing as disposition)