Opinion
NO. 2018 CW 1734
04-05-2019
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC v. DOUG WELBORN, CLERK OF COURT AND EX-OFFICIO RECORDER OF MORTGAGES FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, MARCUS L. LOUIS, WANDA LOUIS, AND MWSL ENTERPRISES, LLC
In Re: Marcus L. Louis, Wanda L. Louis, and NWSL Enterprises, LLC, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 645308. BEFORE: McDONALD, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. An application for supervisory writs must be filed within thirty days of the notice of judgment as provided for in La. C.C.P. art. 1914. See Rule 4-3, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. Although the trial court can extend that delay upon a proper showing, a request for an extension must be filed within the applicable thirty-day delay. Tower Credit, Inc. v. Bradley, 2015-1164 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/15/16), 194 So.3d 62, 65. An application not filed in the appellate court within thirty days from the date of notice, or within an extended return date period, shall not be considered in the absence of a showing that the delay in filing was not due to the applicant's fault. See Rule 4-3, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal; Tower Credit, Inc., 194 So.3d at 65. Notice of the trial court judgment was mailed on September 7, 2018. The thirty day time period allowed by Rule 4-3 expired on Monday, October 8, 2018. Relators did not file a notice of intent to apply for supervisory writ with the trial court until October 19, 2018, after the thirty-day time period allowed by Rule 4-3 had expired. Relators failed to carry their burden of proving that the notice of intent to apply for supervisory writ sent to the trial court by facsimile transmission on Monday, October 8, 2018 meets the requirements of La. R.S. 13: 850. See Hunter v. Morton's Seafood Restaurant & Catering, 2008-1667 (La. 3/17/09), 6 So.3d 152, 153. The trial court's order dated October 22, 2018, setting a return date of November 22, 2018, is not valid. A trial court has no authority to grant a delay for filing an application for supervisory writs once the thirty day period from the ruling at issue has expired. See Watts v. Dorignac, 95-2285 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/22/96), 681 So.2d 955, 956. Finding no indication that the belated filing was attributable to anything other than the fault of relators, we conclude this writ application is untimely under Rule 4-3, Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.
JMM
WJC
Holdridge J., dissents and would reverse the Order of the trial court granting the motion to compel discovery. Rule 10.1 (b) of the District Court rules states "No counsel for a party shall file, nor shall any clerk set for hearing, any motion to compel discovery unless accompanied by a 'Rule 10.1 Certificate of Conference...'" It is without question in this case the motion to compel was not accompanied by the required certificate. The trial court erred in granting the motion to compel that did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 10.1 and I would reverse its order. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT