261 So. 3d 959
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Ramos leased commercial premises from Le/La Rouge Properties (2013) and stored items in the rear during renovations.
- Le (or his agent) told Ramos he could not store items there and on three occasions between 2013–2015 entered the premises and removed items.
- Ramos sued pro se on May 25, 2017 alleging trespass/theft/fraud and related negligence claims; initial petition lacked specific dates prompting an amendment.
- Defendants filed a peremptory exception of prescription; at hearing Ramos testified he learned of the incidents between 2013 and 2015 and produced a September 30, 2016 demand letter.
- Trial court found Ramos’s delictual claims prescribed (one-year liberative prescription under La. C.C. art. 3492) and that contra non valentem did not apply; judgment dismissing claims was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims prescribed on face of petition | Ramos argued facts alleged and amendment suffice; relied on testimony and 2016 demand letter | Defendants argued one-year delictual prescription ran before 2017 filing | Held: Claims prescribed — pleaded facts and testimony show last injury by 2015, suit filed 2017 |
| Whether contra non valentem interrupts prescription | Ramos argued Le’s statement that landlord had right to remove property lulled him into inaction until Sept. 2016 | Defendants argued statements were not fraudulent concealment and cannot suspend prescription | Held: Contra non valentem inapplicable — no intentional misrepresentation or concealment; ignorance of law insufficient |
| Burden of proof on exception of prescription | Ramos sought to shift or avoid burden by claiming interruption | Defendants maintained exception showed prescription on face of petition so burden shifted to Ramos to prove interruption | Held: Where prescription evident from pleadings burden shifts to plaintiff; Ramos failed to prove interruption |
| Whether pleadings required more specificity after court order | Ramos amended but did not supply dates for all incidents | Defendants argued insufficiency and prescription consequence | Held: Even accepting testimony/amendment, claims still prescribed; failure to fully comply would have warranted dismissal anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- Ames v. Ohle, 97 So.3d 386 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (standard of review and burden when exception of prescription is filed)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (manifest error standard and preference for constructions maintaining claims)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (identifies four recognized contra non valentem categories)
- Prevo v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., 187 So.3d 395 (La. 2015) (mere incorrect statements by defendant do not satisfy fraud/concealment for contra non valentem)