Opinion
NO. 2019-OC-1724
01-22-2020
Jason MEADOWS, Individually and Jason Meadows on Behalf of Southern Cross Marine Services, LLC v. Christy ADAMS
PER CURIAM In this matter, we are asked to determine the validity of a pleading filed by facsimile.
For purposes of the issue before us, the facts are largely undisputed. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice on May 8, 2018. The notice of the judgment was mailed on May 9, 2018.
Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial by facsimile on May 17, 2018. Notably, the facsimile-filed pleading was signed by plaintiff's counsel with an electronic signature. On May 24, 2018, within seven days of the facsimile filing, plaintiff's counsel delivered an original document to the clerk of court. Unlike the earlier pleading filed by facsimile, this original document was hand signed by plaintiff's counsel.
On May 29, 2018, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for new trial. On July 13, 2018, plaintiff filed a petition for devolutive appeal.
Like the earlier motion for new trial, the motion for devolutive appeal was filed by facsimile with an electronic signature. On July 18, 2018, plaintiff's counsel delivered to the clerk an original document which was hand signed.
After the appeal was lodged, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's appeal as untimely. In support, defendant argued plaintiff failed to file an identical original document within seven days, and the facsimile filing was therefore without effect.
The court of appeal dismissed the appeal, finding plaintiff failed to file an original document identical to the facsimile filing within seven days thereby rendering the pleading filed by facsimile ineffective. Because of the lack of a timely motion for new trial, the court found the delays for filing a motion and order of appeal were not interrupted, and the appeal was not timely filed. Meadows v. Adams , 2018-1544 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/7/19), 285 So.3d 1101, 2019 WL 3717547. One judge dissented and would have given effect to plaintiff's filings, thereby finding the appeal to be timely. Plaintiff now seeks review in this court.
The statute governing facsimile filing, La. R.S. 13:850(B), provides, in pertinent part:
B. Within seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the clerk of court receives the facsimile filing, all of the following shall be delivered to the clerk of court:
(1) The original document identical to the facsimile filing in number of pages and in content of each page including any attachments, exhibits, and orders. A document not identical to the facsimile filing or which includes pages not included in the facsimile filing shall not be considered the original document. [emphasis added.]
Notably, as originally enacted, La. R.S. 13:850(B)(1) required delivery of the "original signed document." However, this language was modified when the statute was amended by Acts 2016, No. 109, § 1, and now requires the original document must be "identical to the facsimile filing in number of pages and in content of each page including any attachments, exhibits, and orders."
This distinction is important for purposes of the instant case, because it is undisputed the original document filed by plaintiff on May 24, 2018 is identical in page number and content to the earlier version filed by facsimile on May 17, 2018. The sole difference is the form of the signatures, with the signature of counsel on the May 17, 2018 document being in electronic form and the signature of counsel on the May 24, 2018 document being in hand-signed form. It is further undisputed the electronic signature and handwritten signature are authentic and belong to plaintiff's counsel.
The Louisiana Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, La. R.S. 9:2601, et seq. , governs electronic signatures. La. R.S. 9:2607(A) of that Act provides, "[a] record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form."
Reading La. R.S. 9:2607(A) in para materia with La. R.S. 13:850(B)(1), we find the electronic signature has the same legal effect as the hand-signed signature, thereby making the two documents identical from a legal standpoint. The court of appeal erred in holding to the contrary.
We emphasize our holding is based on the unique and specific facts of the case before us. Nothing in this opinion should be read as calling into question the requirement that the documents must be identical with regard to page length and content. See, e.g. , Smith v. St. Charles Parish Public Schools , 17-745 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/1/18), 246 So.3d 821, writ denied , 18-1001 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So.3d 802
--------
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal finding plaintiff's appeal was untimely is reversed. The case is remanded to the court of appeal for consideration on the merits.