157 So. 3d 790
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs filed a Seaman’s Complaint against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (APC) for injuries from striking an underwater pipeline; suit later added Anadarko E&P Company, LP.
- Case was removed to federal court and remanded to state court; subsequent amendments asserted APC ownership of the pipeline.
- Multiple scheduling and continuance orders occurred between 2010 and 2013; a status conference and a continued trial date were set.
- APC moved to dismiss for abandonment alleging no activity for over three years; hearing occurred in November 2013.
- Trial court granted dismissal for abandonment on December 3, 2013, and denied a motion to set aside in March 2014.
- Plaintiffs appeal contending the case was not abandoned and the set-aside motion was timely; the appellate court reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case was abandoned under Article 561 | Plaintiffs argue a step toward prosecution occurred and Article 561 should be liberally interpreted. | APC contends the case was abandoned after three years without a prosecutorial step and the motion to set aside is untimely or a new trial should apply. | Yes; the case was not abandoned; trial court erred in dismissal. |
| Timeliness and proper vehicle to challenge dismissal | Plaintiffs filed a timely motion to set aside within 30 days of dismissal. | Because the dismissal was by contradictory hearing, the proper path was a motion for new trial or appeal, not a set-aside. | Motion to set aside was timely under Article 561A(4) and appeal timely retained. |
| Effect of contradictory hearing on abandonment analysis | The ex parte nature of APC’s motion should not convert into a contradictory proceeding that alters abandonment analysis. | The hearing was valid and controls how to review the dismissal. | The proceedings did not forbid a timely set-aside; abandonment analysis corrects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean v. Delacroix Corp., 106 So.3d 283 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2012) (tolling start when last action to push case toward trial occurs; August 24, 2010 scheduling order not the last action for tolling)
- Heirs of Simoneaux v. B-P Amoco, 131 So.3d 1128 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2014) (discusses tolling and status conferences in abandonment)
- Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 785 So.2d 779 (La.1991) (liberal interpretation of Article 561 in favor of maintaining suit)
- Louisiana Dep’t of Transp. & Dev. v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C., 79 So.3d 978 (La.2011) (abandonment standard and steps toward prosecution)