Lisa Jarreau v. Thomas E. Gibbs d/b/a The Law Office of Thomas Gibbs and Robert T. Talley
2019CA1313
La. Ct. App.Jun 12, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Lisa Jarreau was injured at the Sheraton in New Orleans (2008) and retained attorneys Thomas Gibbs and Robert Talley to prosecute an "elevator" suit in Orleans Parish (petition filed 2009).
- Gibbs and Talley allegedly failed to timely assert a claim against Schindler Elevator in that underlying suit; Schindler’s prescription exception was heard April 10, 2015.
- Jarreau filed a legal malpractice suit against Gibbs and Talley on April 15, 2015 in Orleans Parish.
- Defendants raised venue objections; Orleans Civil District Court ultimately ordered transfer to East Baton Rouge Parish (transferred Aug. 22, 2018). The 19th JDC (East Baton Rouge) then dismissed Jarreau’s malpractice claim as perempted, finding the original Orleans filing was in an improper venue and thus untimely.
- The First Circuit reversed, holding Orleans Parish was a proper venue under La. C.C.P. art. 74 (parish where damages were sustained), so the 19th JDC erred in dismissing the malpractice suit as perempted on the ground asserted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue for malpractice under Art. 74 | Orleans Parish is proper because Jarreau’s damages were sustained there when the elevator suit was dismissed | Venue is East Baton Rouge (attorneys’ office); Orleans was improper | Held: Orleans Parish is a proper venue (parish where damages were sustained); plaintiff may choose among proper venues |
| Was suit perempted because originally filed in an "improper" venue? | Filing in Orleans was timely and in a proper venue; malpractice suit not perempted on that basis | Because Orleans was improper, the malpractice suit was not timely in a court of proper venue and is perempted | Held: Court reversed dismissal — malpractice suit not perempted on the asserted transfer/venue ground |
| Effect of transfer on peremption and standard of review | (implicit) Transferor court’s venue ruling should control final outcome | Transferee court must independently assess peremption after transfer | Held: Transferee court must reconsider venue/peremption de novo; law-of-the-case does not bar independent review |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. LeBlanc, 598 So. 2d 337 (La. 1992) (venue under Art. 74 lies where wrongful conduct occurred or where damages were sustained)
- Land v. Vidrine, 62 So. 3d 36 (La. 2011) (transferee court must reexamine peremption and venue after transfer)
- Cacamo v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 764 So. 2d 41 (La. 2000) (plaintiff may choose any available, proper venue)
- Daniels v. SMG Crystal, L.L.C., 128 So. 3d 1272 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (interlocutory nature of venue rulings and motion-for-new-trial implications)
- Johnson v. Tschirn, 635 So. 2d 254 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1994) (attorney’s failure to file documents may occur in parish where underlying action was pending)
- Belwise Aquaculture Sys., Inc. v. Lemke, 904 So. 2d 940 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2005) (venue proper in parish where petition was drafted when claims were omitted)