Summary
In McGlynn & Glisson v. Donahue, 17-183 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/18/17), 2017 WL 2189806 (unpublished writ decision), the court recognized that neither La.R.S. 13:1215 nor La.R.S. 13:4522 requires the defendant to post security for costs, reversed the trial court's ruling, and denied the plaintiff's ex parte motion seeking to have the defendant post security for costs.
Summary of this case from Carriere v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.Opinion
NO. 2017 CW 0183
05-18-2017
MCGLYNN & GLISSON v. TERRENCE JOSEPH DONAHUE
In Re: Terrence Joseph Donahue, Jr., applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 643,808. BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, THERIOT AND CHUTZ, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:1215 and 13:4522, require the "plaintiff or party prosecuting the cause to give bond or other security" and "the plaintiff or intervenor to give security for the cost[s] in such case." Neither statute requires the defendant to provide security for costs. The courts of this state have rejected arguments that a defendant in a reconventional demand can compel the defendant in the principal demand to provide security for costs. See Herzog's Automotive Parts, Inc. v. Baronne Auto Supply, Inc., 94-1054 (La. App. 4th Cir. 6/30/94), 639 So.2d 1223; Wabnig v. Royal Crystal Art Co., Inc., 301 So.2d 366 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1974); State ex rel. Nelson and Poppleton v. Judge of the Sixth District Court, 25 La.Ann. 227 (1873). Therefore, we find the trial court erred in ordering the defendant in the principal demand, Terrence J. Donahue, Jr., to post $75,000.00 in security to proceed with his reconventional demand. Accordingly, the trial court's November 28, 2016 judgment ordering the defendant to post security is reversed, and we deny plaintiff's motion and request for an ex parte order for security for costs. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
WRC
TMH
MRT
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT