354 So.3d 14
La. Ct. App.2022Background
- On February 16, 2020, Hughes alleges Harvey trespassed, damaged his truck, and assaulted him; Hughes filed suit on March 19, 2021.
- Harvey filed a peremptory exception pleading prescription, arguing Hughes’s suit was filed more than one year after the incident, and also filed an answer and reconventional demand.
- The prescription exception hearing was set for September 7, 2021; Hughes’s counsel filed a motion to continue (counsel claimed a scheduling conflict) which remained pending.
- On September 7, the court heard the prescription exception without Hughes or his counsel present; Harvey’s counsel opposed the continuance and proceeded to argue prescription.
- The trial court granted Harvey’s prescription exception and dismissed Hughes’s suit with prejudice; Hughes appealed, arguing the court erred by hearing the exception while his contested motion to continue was undecided.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court committed legal error by failing to hold the contradictory summary hearing required for a contested motion to continue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting the prescription exception when Hughes had a pending, contested motion to continue that had not been ruled on | Hughes: The motion to continue was contested and pending; La. C.C.P. art. 1605 requires a summary contradictory hearing before proceeding — failure to do so was legal error | Harvey: Opposed the continuance and was ready to proceed; Hughes’s counsel chose not to appear and the petition was prescribed on its face | The court reversed: because the motion to continue was contested, the trial court erred by proceeding without the mandatory contradictory hearing; judgment granting prescription exception reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Bogalusa v. Moses, 323 So.3d 404 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2021) (review of continuance denials for abuse of discretion)
- Landry v. Landry, 331 So.3d 351 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2021) (contested motion to continue must be tried summarily and contradictorily)
- Bradford v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 347 So.2d 1218 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (contradictory hearing requirement discussed)
- James v. Our Lady of Lourdes, Inc., 261 So.3d 921 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2018) (distinguishing application of art. 1605 to contested versus uncontested continuances)
- In re Elloie, 921 So.2d 882 (La. 2006) (failure to hold statutorily required contradictory hearing is legal error)
- Clark v. City of Hammond, 767 So.2d 882 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (outlining requirements of a contradictory hearing)
- Powell v. Giddens, 271 So.2d 596 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (attorney scheduling conflict is a discretionary ground for continuance)
- Coffman v. Mainhardt, 602 So.2d 264 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (same: counsel scheduling conflicts as grounds for continuance)