Opinion
24-C-343
08-21-2024
SHAWN MARK ANDERSON AND ALLEGRA WILSON ANDERSON v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS PARENT U.S. BANKCORP IN RE USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST JAMES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, DIVISION "C", NUMBER 75720
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Scott U.Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel
WRIT DENIED
Relator-defendant USAA Federal Savings Bank seeks supervisory review of a July 26, 2024 interlocutory ruling of the trial court denying relator's Motion for a New Trial and Motion to Continue Trial Date.
The Supreme Court has instructed the appellate courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction when (1) an appellate reversal will terminate the litigation, (2) there is no dispute of fact to be resolved, and (3) the trial court decision is arguably incorrect. Herlitz Constr. Co. v. Hotel Inv'rs of New Iberia, 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981).
Upon reviewing relator's writ application, these criteria have not been met. In particular, it is unclear whether reversing the trial court's ruling, delaying the trial, and forcing the trial court to reset relator's motion for summary judgment will terminate the litigation. Relator's application also points to unresolved issues of fact. In consideration of the above and in the interests of judicial economy, we decline to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction at this time.
TSM
MEJ
SCHLEGEL, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
I respectfully dissent. USAA timely filed its motion for summary judgment and served it upon all parties on June 21, 2024, 66 days before the August 26, 2024 trial date. It is not relator's fault that the trial court signed a rule to show cause on June 25, 2024 setting a hearing for July 11, 2024, only 20 days after the filing of its motion, in violation of La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(1)(a).
According to the deadlines set forth in Article 966(C)(1)(a), the trial court should have set the motion for summary judgment between Monday, July 22, 2024 and Friday, July 26, 2024 (the latest date that the hearing could have been set). Therefore, the trial court's grant of plaintiffs' motion to strike was erroneous. See Digitech Computers, Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge, 21-1216 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/20/21), 2021 WL 4892020 (First Circuit vacated the district court's judgment denying as untimely the defendant's motion for summary judgment, noting that the motion and supporting documents were electronically received by the district court and emailed to counsel for plaintiff 66 days prior to the trial).
Furthermore, plaintiffs' motion to strike was procedurally deficient. La. C.C.P. art. 963(B) requires that "[i]f the order applied for by written motion is one to which the mover is not clearly entitled . . . the motion shall be served on and tried contradictorily with the adverse party." See also Henry v. Baton Rouge Sewer &Drain Serv., Inc., 15-1385 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/15/16), 2016 WL 1545661, at *9.
Thus, the plaintiffs' motion to strike was procedurally deficient because it was not accompanied by a rule to show cause requesting that the motion be set for hearing.
Accordingly, I would grant USAA's writ application, reverse and vacate the trial court's judgment striking USAA's motion for summary judgment as untimely and grant USAA's motion to continue trial date. I would further remand this matter with instructions to the trial court to set USAA's motion for summary judgment for hearing in accordance with the deadlines contained in La. C.C.P. Article 966.
SUS