Summary
In Aydell, we held that "such a requirement [to attach or adopt by reference and incorporate supporting documentation pursuant to La.C.C.P. art. 967 with the motion for summary judgment] undermines the use of summary judgment procedures to `secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.
Summary of this case from Samaha v. RauOpinion
No. 98-C-3135
February 26, 1999
IN RE: Cigna Property Cas. Co.; Cigna Fire Underwriters; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Livingston 21st Judicial District Court Div. "E" Number 53,712; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA97 1945
Writ granted. See attachment.
PFC
WFM
HTL
JPV
JTK
JOHNSON, J. would deny the writ.
TRAYLOR, J. not on panel.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF LOUISIANA
Writ granted. The Court of Appeal has erroneously held that the trial court could not rely on the evidence submitted by the defendant CIGNA in support of its motion, simply because the affidavits and deposition testimony were attached to the Memorandum in Support of the Motion and not to the Motion itself. Such a requirement undermines the use of summary judgment procedures to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." La.C.C.P. art. 966 (A) (2). Moreover, we note that the plaintiff did not raise the issue of this alleged procedural error in its appeal to the First Circuit. Also significant is the defendant's uncontested assertion that the Motion and Memorandum in Support were filed with the trial court simultaneously, in accordance with that court's local rules. Thus, the information contained in the affidavits and deposition testimony submitted by the defendant was properly before the trial court and should have been considered by the Court of Appeal. The case is therefore remanded to the Court of Appeal for consideration of the merits of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.