Opinion
NO. 2017 CW 0112
04-06-2017
MICHEL JACKSON MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NATURAL TUTRI OF HER MINOR SON v. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RODNEY STRAIN, SHERIFF OF THE PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY, NORTHSHORE WORKFORCE, LLC, VICTORY BIBLE CHURCH, A LOUISIANA RELIGIOUS CORPORATION
In Re: Northshore Workforce, LLC and Rodney J. Strain, in his official capacity as Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2015-11850. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY AND McCLENDON, JJ.
WRIT DENIED.
PMc
Whipple, C.J., concurs and would deny on the showing made.
Guidry, J., dissents and would grant the writ and reverse the denial of the exception of prescription by the district court. Prescription is interrupted when the obligee commences action against the obligor, in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue. If action is commenced in an improper venue, prescription is interrupted only as to a defendant served by process within the prescriptive period. La. Civ. Code art. 3462. Venue was improper in the Parish of East Baton Rouge as to defendants, Rodney J. Strain, as Sheriff of the Parish of St. Tammany, Northshore Workforce, L.L.C. and Victory Bible Church, according to the allegations of the Petition. The only defendant as to which venue may have been proper in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, the Louisiana Department of Corrections, was dismissed by the court pursuant to an exception of no cause of action. Therefore, that defendant could not constitute a joint or solidary obligor of the remaining defendants for purposes of interruption of prescription. See Spott v. Otis Elevator Company, 601 So.2d 1355 (La. 1992); Greene v. Engolio, 257 So.2d 831, 835 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1972). Because there was no joint or solidary liability, the filing of this action against the Louisiana Department of Corrections did not interrupt prescription as to defendants, Rodney J. Strain, as Sheriff of the Parish of St. Tammany, and Northshore Workforce, L.L.C. There is no dispute that these defendants were not served within the one year prescriptive period, and accordingly, plaintiff's action as to these defendants is prescribed. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT