The Runaway Railroad Jury Verdict: A Cautionary Tale for Attorneys and Jury Members

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device a party can use to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. La. C.C.P. art. 966 is the statute that governs motions for summary judgment in Louisiana. The statute was amended in 2015 to establish some new procedural rules for filing summary judgment motions. Before the statue was amended, the deadline for opposing a motion for summary judgment was set in the District Court Rules, and courts frequently allowed oppositions to motions for summary judgment to be filed after the statutory delay.

In 2015, the Legislature amended the statute to state that “absent the consent of the parties and the court, an opposition shall be filed” within the new fifteen-day deadline established by the article. In Auricchio v. Harriston, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the amendments to the statute removed the discretionary language that previously allowed a court to allow a party additional time to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court ruled the amendments to art. 966 made the opposition deadline mandatory, and late-filed oppositions should not be considered in connection with a ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently revisited this issue in Mahe v. LCMC Health Holdings LLC. The Court considered whether a trial court may grant a continuance of a hearing on a motion for summary judgment when a party fails to file its opposition within the fifteen-day deadline set in La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).

In Mahe, a party requested a continuance of the hearing after the fifteen-day deadline passed. While subsection 966(C)(2) provides that a continuance of the hearing is permitted “for good cause shown,” the Court held that the requested continuance could not serve to circumvent the mandatory deadline for filing an opposition, as described in the Auricchio case. Accordingly, the order granting the continuance was reversed, and the trial court was instructed to rule on the motion for summary judgment without consideration of the untimely filed opposition. In so holding, the Court reinforced the mandatory deadlines set in La. C.C.P. art. 966 and provided additional guidance on the procedural rules for filing and opposing motions for summary judgment.

Lawsuits begin in the trial court. For that reason, the immediate focus remains in the trial court where the case will be decided by the jury or the trial judge. However, once the judgment is entered or the verdict reached, the focus quickly shifts to the appeals court. In many cases, what happens in the trial court is just “round one” and cases are often truly decided on appeal. This post will help to identify the types of issues considered when there is an appeal.If you’ve received a negative ruling in the trial court, you are not out of options. State and federal trial court decisions are subject to review by a court of appeals. Generally, when an appellate court reviews a decision, it looks for two things: 1) legal error; or 2) an improper finding of fact. Your chance of success on appeal increases when there is a significant legal error because a reviewing court will give a de novo review of the issue. In other words, you get a brand new “trial” on the issue presented when it involves a legal issue and not merely an interpretation of the evidence offered at trial.The chance of success on appeal decreases when there are no significant legal questions to resolve. In this situation, the trial court’s findings of fact will be respected unless “manifest error” is found. However, other grounds for an appeal do exist including, but not limited to, refusal to admit relevant evidence, refusal to admit an expert’s testimony, providing improper jury instructions or, in some cases, judicial bias toward a party.It is also important to know that your right to seek appellate relief is not only available after a trial. When a party can show that the trial court has made an error which will cause prejudice if not corrected before trial or demonstrate that a reversal of the ruling would resolve the entire claim against that party, they can file a “writ application.” While similar to an appeal, a writ is a streamlined process. When the case presents a new or novel issue of law, the chances of having the appellate court consider the writ increases dramatically.The written brief--the appellate brief (for final judgments) and the writ application (for pre-trial rulings)–is the centerpiece of any request for appellate relief. It is critical that the brief be well-reasoned and persuasive. Appeals often involve oral argument, but, even then, the arguments typically center around issues addressed in the written briefs.When you are in the throes of the fight in the trial court, it is important to remember that another “round” may be coming. Keeping this focus helps to preserve and develop arguments and evidence that may be needed on appeal. Whether you won or lost in the trial court, know that the real fight may just be beginning.Reynolds LeBlanc is an Associate Attorney with Keogh Cox heavily involved in appellate practice. The attorneys at Keogh Cox have decades of combined experience representing clients in federal, state, and administrative appeals. The appeals practice by Keogh Cox attorneys has resulted in positive, landmark rulings in a variety of settings to include: the proper scope of who can administer interventional pain management (Spine Diagnostics Ctr. of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Louisiana State Bd. of Nursing ex rel. Louisiana Dep't of Health & Hosps., 2007-0183 (La. 3/16/07), 952 So. 2d 702, handled by John P. Wolff III,Chad A. Sullivan and Nancy Brehm Gilbert); the extent to which employers will be protected by the immunity provided by worker’s compensation (Reeves v. Structural Pres. Sys., 98-1795 (La. 3/12/99), 731 So. 2d 208, handled by Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc); the establishment of mitigation defenses available to attorneys in legal malpractice claims (MB Indus., LLC v. CNA Ins. Co., 2011-0303 (La. 10/25/11), 74 So. 3d 1173, handled by Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc); and, the preservation of water rights under the Federal Powers Act (Simmons v. Sabine River Auth. of Louisiana, 134 S. Ct. 1876, 188 L. Ed. 2d 912 (2014), handled by John P. Wolff III and Nancy Brehm Gilbert), along with others.

In Madden v. Fairburn, the plaintiff amended her petition to assert a UM claim against an insurer based upon the alleged negligence of a new defendant not named in the original petition. The amended petition asserted a new theory of liability but sought the same recovery under the same UM policy.

The issue presented to the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit was whether the original petition interrupted prescription for the claim brought against the UM insurer. Because the insurer did not receive notice in the original petition that it could be liable for damages based upon the new defendant’s fault, the court found prescription could not be interrupted.

Madden was a passenger in a vehicle driven by John Seibert that collided with Steven Ray Fairburn. Madden timely filed suit against Fairburn and Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation (Capitol Specialty), claiming uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under its policy. The Trial Court later dismissed Madden’s claims against Fairburn. While the appeal of that ruling was pending, and over five years after the accident, Madden amended her petition to allege Seibert was at fault and sought the same UM coverage any damages he caused. Capitol Specialty argued the claim brought against it in the amended petition had prescribed.

At the time of the accident, claims for torts/delictual actions had a one-year prescriptive period that commenced from the date of the injury or damage sustained* Claims to recover damages under a UM policy are subject to a prescription period of two years.^ Madden argued her original claim against Capitol Specialty interrupted prescription because her amended claim arose from the same accident and sought to recover damages under the same UM policy.

La. C.C. art. 3462 states that prescription is interrupted when an obligee (Madden) commences an action against an obligor (Capitol Specialty) in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue. However, in Kling v. Hebert, the Louisiana Supreme Court has clarified that the “essence of interruption of prescription by suit is notice to the defendant of the legal proceedings based on the claim involved.” The Kling judges emphasized that prescription serves to protect defendants from unexpected liability years after an event, particularly when a new legal theory or a different alleged tortfeasor is introduced.

The court also considered Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, which held that a claim against an insurer based on one party’s negligence does not interrupt prescription for a later claim against the same insurer based on another party’s negligence. Because Madden’s original suit was based on Fairburn’s negligence, Capitol Specialty did not receive timely notice that she would later seek UM coverage based on Seibert’s alleged fault. Thus, the appellate court ruled in favor of the insurer, affirming the prescription of the plaintiff’s claims.

References:

Madden v. Fairburn, 2024-0513 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/24), --- So.3d ---, 2024 WL 5232995.

Kling v. Hebert, 23- 00257, p. 4 (La. 1/ 26/24), 378 So. 3d 54.

Trahan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 314 So. 2d 350 (La. 1975).

*La. C.C. art. 3492. See As of July 1, 2024, delictual actions are subject to a two-year liberative prescriptive period, applying to delictual actions that arose or after the effective date.

^ La. R.S. 9:5629.