Resource
HALL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. V. BRUNT CONSTRUCTION, INC., 15-0192 (LA. APP. 1 CIR. 3 11/09/15), 2015 WL 6951252
Published on: December 18, 2015
In Hall and Associates, Inc. v. Brunt Construction, Inc., 15-0192 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3 11/09/15), 2015 WL 6951252, the plaintiff filed suit asserting a materialman’s lien arising out of a contract for a construction project. On May 17, 2011, discovery requests were served on the plaintiff. The next activity in the suit record was a motion to set a scheduling conference filed on June 4, 2014. Thereafter, the defendant filed an ex parte motion seeking an order of abandonment because the plaintiff had not taken any “step” in the prosecution for over three years; LSA-C.C.P. art. 561 sets a three year abandonment period.Between May 17, 2011 and June 4, 2014, the plaintiff had sent and received multiple letters regarding the scheduling of depositions. The Louisiana First Circuit held that simply attempting to schedule a deposition through informal correspondence is not a step in the prosecution of an action such that the action was properly declared to be abandoned by the trial court.
Disclaimer
Keogh Cox & Wilson, Ltd. provides this blog as a public service for general information only. The materials contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments or even express the opinion of all or even most of Keogh Cox attorneys. Such material does not constitute legal advice or form any attorney-client relationship. Keogh Cox and all contributing author(s) expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this Web site and Blog and expect that no reliance will be made upon the information provided.