318 So.3d 206
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Ray M. Newton was a full‑time employee of St. Tammany Fire Protection District No. 12 until his alleged termination on October 6, 2015.
- Newton sued multiple defendants on October 3, 2018, alleging wrongful termination, whistleblower and other claims; he did not expressly plead a Louisiana Wage Payment Act claim in the original petition.
- Newton amended his petition (leave granted Feb. 11, 2019) to add an unpaid wages claim under La. R.S. 23:631; the amended petition was filed after removal to and remand from federal court and after Newton dismissed his FLSA claims.
- Defendants filed peremptory exceptions, including prescription; the trial court sustained exceptions of vagueness, prescription, and no cause of action on Oct. 21, 2019 and denied Newton an opportunity to amend.
- On appeal the First Circuit held the unpaid wages claim related back to the original Oct. 3, 2018 filing and thus was timely, reversed the trial court as to that claim, and remanded for further proceedings including allowing Newton to amend under La. C.C.P. art. 934.
- The court assessed appeal costs against the appellees and instructed the trial court to set a deadline for any amendment; if amendment cannot cure prescription the claim shall be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Newton's Feb. 2019 unpaid wages claim relates back to his Oct. 3, 2018 original petition under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 | Newton: the wage claim arises from the same termination and factual allegations in the original petition, so the amendment relates back and is timely. | Appellees: Newton's wage claim was added after the 3‑year prescriptive period and does not relate back, so it is prescribed. | Court: The wage claim relates back to the Oct. 3, 2018 filing because the original petition gave fair notice; unpaid wages claim is timely. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not allowing Newton to amend to cure prescription defects (La. C.C.P. art. 934) | Newton: the court should have permitted amendment because the grounds of the exception may be removable by amendment. | Appellees: (implicitly) the prescription defense was established and dismissal was proper. | Court: Reversed and remanded to permit Newton an opportunity to amend under art. 934; if amendment cannot cure prescription, dismissal follows. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cichirillo v. Avondale Indus., 917 So. 2d 424 (La. 2005) (standard for ruling on peremptory exception of prescription)
- Southside Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Warrington, 635 So. 2d 721 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1994) (relation back requires factual connexity and fair notice)
- Wyman v. Dupepe Const., 24 So. 3d 848 (La. 2009) (trial court should allow amendment where new allegations might defeat prescription)
- Whitnell v. Menville, 540 So. 2d 304 (La. 1989) (amendment should be permitted unless it is clear it would have no effect on prescription)
- Slaughter v. Bd. of Supervisors of Southern Univ. & A&M Coll., 76 So. 3d 438 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2011) (purpose and prescriptive period for Louisiana Wage Payment Act)