Opinion
56,035-CW
08-23-2024
RONTERRICA SHANTEZ GRAY AND DIAMOND SHREE JACKSON v. MESSIAH CONNER, MARGARET CONNER STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY
TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS, ET AL. Stephen Dale Cronin Counsel for: GEICO Casualty Company a/k/a GEICO Indemnity Company Gregory George Elias Counsel for: Ronterrica Shantez Gray and Diamond Shree Jackson CASTEN & PEARCE, APLC Claude Wilbur Bookter, Jr. Counsel for: Messiah Conner, Margaret Conner, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
On application of GEICO Casualty Company for SUPERVISORY WRIT in No. 20230463 on the docket of the Fourth Judicial District, Parish of OUACHITA, Judge Jefferson Bryan Joyce.
TAYLOR, PORTER, BROOKS, ET AL. Stephen Dale Cronin Counsel for: GEICO Casualty Company a/k/a GEICO Indemnity Company
Gregory George Elias Counsel for: Ronterrica Shantez Gray and Diamond Shree Jackson
CASTEN & PEARCE, APLC Claude Wilbur Bookter, Jr. Counsel for: Messiah Conner, Margaret Conner, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY; REMANDED .
The applicant, Geico Indemnity Company, seeks supervisory review of the trial court's June 12, 2024 "Order on Motion," granting the plaintiffs' motion to continue the hearing on applicant's motion for summary judgment. In this case, both the opposition to the summary judgment and motion for continuance were filed by plaintiffs after the 15-day opposition deadline had run. The plaintiffs have argued that improper calendaring of the hearing date constituted good cause for the continuance. Citing equitable concerns regarding plaintiffs' inability to oppose a summary judgment, the trial court granted the continuance of this matter.
In the absence of consent by the parties, a trial court has no discretion to extend the 15-day deadline for filing an opposition set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2). Moreover, a continuance under La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2) cannot serve as a pretext to circumvent the deadlines set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2). Hadwin v. ABC Ins. Co., 24-00072 (La. 4/9/24), 382 So.3d 827.
Under these circumstances, we find that the plaintiffs failed to show good cause for a continuance, and the granting thereof was an abuse of discretion by the trial court. Newsome v. Homer Memorial Medical Center, 10-0564 (La. 4/9/10), 32 So.3d 800. Accordingly, this writ is granted, and the trial court's ruling is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for a hearing on the applicant's motion for summary judgment without consideration of the plaintiffs' untimely opposition.