author: 11TRAYLOR, Justice. 11KIMBALL, Justice,

text:
    Willard A. EASTIN, Jr., et al. v. ENTERGY CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2003-C-1030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 6, 2004.

      Maria N. Alessandra, Kim M. Boyle, Joanne P. Rinardo, Louis L. Galvis, Phelp & Dunbar, New Orleans; Keith M. Py-burn, Jr., Fisher & Phillips, New Orleans, Counsel for Applicant.
    Linda S. Harang, New Orleans, and Thomas G. Wilkinson, Robert P. Early, Sr., Wilkinson & Grefer, Gretna; Stephen B. Murray, Robert J. Diliberto, Murray Law Firm, New Orleans, Counsel for Respondent.
   11TRAYLOR, Justice.

The plaintiffs relevant to this appeal (Eleven Plaintiffs), who were all between the ages of forty and seventy when terminated by the defendant companies, filed an age discrimination suit under the Louisiana Age Discrimination Employment Act (LADEA). Defendants filed an Exception of Prescription arguing each of the Eleven Plaintiffs were terminated more than one year before suit was filed. The trial court granted defendants’ Exception of Prescription as to these plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed and the court of appeal reversed the trial court judgment based upon the doctrine of contra non valentem. 02-1119 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/03), 844 So.2d 144. We granted defendants’ writ to determine whether the claims of these Eleven Plaintiffs have prescribed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 29, 1993, plaintiffs filed a petition for damages, declaratory relief, and sought class action status in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson under the LADEA. From January 1994 through April 24, 2000, plaintiffs filed seven subsequent supplemental and amending petitions, adding approximately | ¿two hundred additional plaintiffs to the suit. Pursuant to an order by the trial court, on May 31, 2001, plaintiffs filed then-eighth supplemental and amending petition, to which defendants excepted on numerous grounds, including prescription, as to the claims of the Eleven Plaintiffs.

The trial court conducted a hearing on September 20, 2001. Finding that the Eighth Supplemental Petition contained “no allegation as to when each of those eleven plaintiffs knew, or reasonably should have known, of their claim.” The trial court granted defendants’ Exception of Prescription and ordered the plaintiffs “to amend their Petition to provide when each of the eleven plaintiffs’ (sic) knew of their claim.”

On October 23, 2001, plaintiffs filed their Ninth Supplemental and Amending Petition alleging for the first time when they suspected their severance were age-based. | ^Defendants once again urged their Exception of Prescription as to the Eleven Plaintiffs. After hearing oral arguments on the prescription issue on August 21, 2001, the trial court granted defendants’ Exception of Prescription and dismissed with prejudice the claims of the Eleven Plaintiffs by Partial Final Judgment on October 31, 2002. Plaintiffs appealed and the court of appeal reversed the trial court judgment based Uupon the doctrine of contra non valentem. We granted defendants’ writ to determine whether the claims of these Eleven Plaintiffs have prescribed.

DISCUSSION

Prescription Issue

A cause of action based on age discrimination is a delictual action subject to a one year prescriptive period which commences the day the injury or damage is sustained. La. Civ.Codé Ann. art. 3492. Under the two seminal United States Supreme Court cases, Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 102 S.Ct. 28, 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981) and Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980), and their progeny, it is well settled that the damage is sustained in any employment discrimination case at the earlier of the date the employee is informed of his termination or his actual separation from employment. Chardon, 454 U.S. at 8, 102 S.Ct. 28; Ricks, 449 U.S. at 258, 101 S.Ct. 498; Sturniolo v. Sheaffer, Eaton, Inc., 15 F.3d 1023, 1025 (11th Cir.1994); Williams v. Conoco, Inc., 860 F.2d 1306 (5th Cir.1988); Merrill v. Southern Methodist Univ., 806 F.2d 600 (5th Cir.1986); Morris v. Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico, 27 F.3d 746 (1st Cir.1994); Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto-Alicea, 959 F.2d 349, 352 (1st Cir.1992); Winbush v. Normal Life of Louisiana, 599 So.2d 489, 491 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992). These courts have correctly reasoned that the discriminatory act and, hence, the damages occur upon the employee’s first notice of the adverse employment action. Ricks, 449 U.S. at 258, 101 S.Ct. 498.

In both Ricks and Chardon, the United States Supreme Court determined that | Rsuits brought more than one year from the date of notice of the termination are time barred as “the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act not the point at which the consequences of the act become painful.” Ricks, 449 U.S. at 258, 101 S.Ct. 498; Chardon, 454 U.S. at 8, 102 S.Ct. 28. Therefore, under the Ricks/Chardon analysis, prescription begins to run when the termination decision has been made and conveyed to the employee, even if the employment does not cease until a future date. Id.

For the above reasons, we adopt the Ricks/Chardon rule that the plaintiff sustains damage in a non-continuing discrimination case when the discriminatory decision is made and communicated to the employee. Consequently, in the instant case, the prescriptive period of one year began to run for each of the Eleven Plaintiffs on the dates each of them were notified of their respective terminations. Therefore, the claims of all Eleven Plaintiffs are prescribed on the face of the petition as they each waited more than one year from the date the allegedly discriminatory decisions were made and communicated to them before joining the suit.

When an exception of prescription is filed, ordinarily, the burden of proof is on the party pleading prescription. Lima v. Schmidt, 595 So.2d 624, 628 (La.1992). However, if prescription is evident on the face of the pleadings, as it is in the instant case, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the action has not prescribed. Id.; Younger v. Marshall Ind., Inc., 618 So.2d 866, 869 (La.1993); Williams v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 611 So.2d 1383 (La.1993). Barring any tolling, the Eleven Plaintiffs claims are prescribed.

Plaintiffs argue that they could not know of the discrimination until they knew of the defendants’ illegal motives, or the “animus,”' behind their terminations. In Morris, 27 F.3d 746, the plaintiff made the same argument and the Morris court rejected this contention, stating:

|fiThe rule in an employment discrimination case is that the limitations period begins to run when the claimant receives unámbiguous and authoritative notice of the discriminatory act (which is another way of saying that the period begins to run when the employee learns of the adverse employment action). Thus, the key question to be answered here is temporal: at what juncture did appellant reliably know of the injury to which this lawsuit relates?
[ T]he point in time at which the consequences of the act become hardest to bear — which may or may not coincide with the occurrence of the act itself— has no relevance for purposes of framing the limitations period ... [Plaintiffs argument] rests on the notion that appellant’s claim did not accrue until he knew of both the suspension and the defendants’ discriminatory animus. Stated a different way, [plaintiff] contends that his cause of action existed in what amounts to a state of suspended animation until he became aware of the ... motives behind the adverse employment decision. We cannot countenance this contention.
It is by now well established that, in employment discrimination actions, limitations periods normally start to run when the employer’s decision is made and communicated to the affected employee. This rule of law is grounded on a solid foundation: when an employee knows that he has been hurt and also knows that his employer has inflicted the injury, it is fair to begin the countdown toward repose. And the plaintiff need not know all "the facts that support his claim in order for countdown to commence.

27 F.3d at 749-51(Parenthetieal information and emphasis in original, internal citations omitted). While this reasoning squarely addresses when prescription begins to run in the instant case, we recognize that the federal law does not provide a remedy which exactly replicates our doctrine of contra non valentem. Therefore, we now turn to a discussion of this doctrine under our jurisprudence.

Contra Non Valentem Issue

The doctrine of contra non valen-tem provides that prescription does not run against one who is ignorant of the facts upon which their cause of action is based and applies an exception to the statutory prescriptive period where in fact and for good cause a plaintiff is unable to exercise his cause of action when it accrues. State Bd. of Ethics v. Ourso, 2002-1978 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 346; Reeder v. North, 97-0239 (La.10/21/97), 701 So.2d 1291, 1298; Hebert v. Doctors Mem. Hosp., 486 So.2d 717, 723 (La.1986).

This court in Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 206, 211, recognized four limited situations where the doctrine applies to prevent the running of prescription. The only argument raised by the plaintiffs in this area relate to the fourth element, known as the “discovery rule” and provides that prescription commences on the date the injured party discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which his cause of action is based. Griffin v. Kinberger, 507 So.2d 821 (La.1987); Lott v. Haley, 370 So.2d 521 (La.1979). This standard is exceedingly stringent and should be applied only in exceptional circumstances.

Along this vein, the Eleven Plaintiffs urge that they were unaware of the facts upon which their cause of action could be based because they were not aware of an alleged “pattern” of discrimination and, therefore, had no way of knowing that they had a cause of action within one year of their terminations. However, a “pattern” of discrimination is not required in order for an aggrieved plaintiff to have knowledge of his cause of action for age discrimination. The correct standard does not revolve | saround the knowledge of others who have filed suit, but relates to the plaintiffs reasonableness.

As previously stated, the general rule is that prescription begins to run from the date the discriminatory act is decided and communicated to the employee. The Eleven Plaintiffs’ request that this court uphold the court of appeal determination that contra non valentem applies to suspend prescription is simply untenable. Contra non valentem acts to suspend prescription where the action or inaction of the plaintiff is reasonable. Jordan v. Employee Transfer Corp., 509 So.2d 420, 423 (La.1987). The Eleven Plaintiffs allege no facts which show that their delay in joining the suit is reasonable.

Plaintiffs may not simply sit on their hands and do nothing to investigate their termination and expect their actions to be deemed reasonable. Under the facts of the instant case, where the plaintiffs alleged absolutely no active role in determining if their terminations were for unlawful reasons and made no inquiry into the reasons for their terminations, the plaintiffs delay in filing suit was not reasonable and does not merit the application of the doctrine of contra non valentem. We find the trial court was correct in granting the defendants’ Exception of Prescription because the petition was prescribed on its face and the plaintiffs further made no effort to rehabilitate their lacking petition at the hearing. Moreover, plaintiffs have alleged no facts which lead this court to believe that they were somehow prevented from filing their suits in a timely manner. Their delay can only be attributed to their own inaction.

We recognize a distinct difference between learning of a lawsuit, learning of others being terminated for age-related reasons, and the situation we have here, where the causes of action accrue at the termination and prescription immediately commences yet the aggrieved party does nothing for years to determine if they have |3a cause of action. It is important to note that the first two situations, learning of another’s law suit or discriminatory practices occasioned upon another, do not give rise to one’s own rights to or the knowledge that one has a cause of action. On the other hand, learning of one’s own termination does give rise to the knowledge of a cause of action and starts the proverbial clock’s ticking.

We conclude that each of the Eleven Plaintiffs had knowledge of their causes of action upon the date of their respective terminations. In the instant case, the petitions of the plaintiffs prove that their terminations occurred more than one year before the suit was filed on November 29, 1993. The inaction of the Eleven Plaintiffs’ for over one year from this time caused each of their suits to prescribe upon the one-year anniversary of the earlier of their terminations or their notification thereof. We find that the Eleven Plaintiffs were in no way prohibited from filing suit or investigating the circumstances of their terminations to determine if they had a cause of action, yet failed to do so. Accordingly, we find no manifest error in the judgment of the trial court.

For the above reasons, we find the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court’s judgment granting defendant’s Exception of Prescription under the doctrine of contra non valentem.

CONCLUSION

After a thorough review of the record and considering the arguments of the parties, we reverse the entire judgment of the court of appeal. For the preceding reasons, we reinstate the trial court judgment granting the defendants’ Exception of Prescription and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

CALOGERO, Chief Justice, concurs for the reasons assigned by KIMBALL, J.

KIMBALL, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

JOHNSON, VICTORY and KNOLL, JJ., concur in result.

11KIMBALL, Justice,

concurring in result only.

I agree with the result reached by the majority in this case; however, in my view, the majority correctly described Louisiana’s doctrine of contra non valentem and then failed to apply it. The result seems to merely give lip service to the doctrine while effectuating a “tolling” of prescription from the date the employee is given notice of termination, which is the federal jurisprudential method.

As recognized by the majority, the doctrine of contra non valentem operates to stop prescription from running against one who is ignorant of the facts upon which his cause of action is based. Specifically, in this case, the doctrine operates to stop prescription from running until one discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which a cause of action for age discrimination is based. While a “pattern” of discrimination may not be required for an aggrieved plaintiff to have knowledge of a cause of action in age discrimination, I am not prepared to burden terminated individuals with investigating and alleging a cause of action within one year when an employer has given the individual seemingly valid reasons for termination. In my view, this renders Louisiana’s doctrine of contra non valentem moot in discrimination 1 {.cases. However, even if the doctrine were applied to the plaintiffs in this case, I recognize that they waited more than a year even after they “discovered” that their termination was a discriminatory act. Consequently, I concur in the result reached by the majority.

      . On August 13, 1997, the plaintiffs were granted class certification by the District Court. This Court subsequently reversed the class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings.

      . The following is the supplemental information provided in the Ninth Supplemental and Amending Petition regarding the Eleven Plaintiffs, with parenthetical information regarding when each filed suit:

        Ellen Blanchard: Ms. Blanchard first realized that she might have been terminated based on her age in late 1995, when she met an ex-coworker, who told her about the class action lawsuit and gave her the telephone number of his attorney ... [The attorney] explained to Ms. Blanchard that the suit was based on claims of age discrimination and that she was qualified to be included because she was 45 years old when she was terminated. (Ms, Blanchard was terminated July 13, 1991 and admits to knowing of the suit for over four years before joining it on July 19, 1999.)

        James Boudreaux: Mr. Boudreaux first realized that he might have been terminated based on his age in mid-October 1997, when he heard on WWL 807 am radio that a class action lawsuit for age discrimination had been filed against Entergy. At about the same time, a neighbor who was an Entergy employee at the time also made Mr. Bou-dreaux aware of the suit. (Mr. Boudreaux was notified of his termination January 6, 1992 admits to knowing of the suit for nearly two and one half years before joining it on April 24, 2000.)

        Robert Butler: Mr. Butler first realized that he might have been terminated based on his age in January 1993, [when he] noticed younger people being trained and hired for positions that he could have been trained to do. Entergy never offered or contacted Mr. Butler about the possibility of being rehired or retrained for these positions. (Mr. Butler was notified of his termination on June 30, 1992 and admits to knowing of a possible cause of action for six and one half years before filing suit on July 19, 1999.)

        Andrew Ford: Mr. Ford first realized that he might have been terminated based on his age sometime in 1995. He was laid off in September 1991, but did not realize or have knowledge of other employees over the age of 40 who were being replaced by younger persons until sometime in 1995. (Mr. Ford was terminated in September of 1991 and admits to knowing of the suit for four years before filing suit on July 19, 1999.)

        Robert Fugok: Mr. Fugok does not know when he first began to realize that his termination was based on his age. He heard that individual suits has [sic] been filed for age discrimination. He talked to Robert Braniff, who had already filed suit. From what Mr. Braniff told Mr. Fugok about his own and other situations, and from what he remembered from his own termination, and from his unsuccessful efforts to regain employment with Entergy, he then believed that he, too, was terminated based on his age. It was then that he contacted the Murray Firm to bring a claim. (Mr. Fugok was notified of his termination on October 31, 1991. There is no information in the record regarding the date he joined the suit.)

        Joy Hughes: Ms. Hughes was told about her termination as part of a group. Many younger employees were transferred to other departments during a year of waiting. She was among the first to be terminated. Her last day of work was December 31, 1991. It was not until mid-1993, when she saw all of the changes being made in the company, that she realized she might have been terminated based on her age. (Ms. Hughes was terminated December 31, 1991 and admits to knowing of the suit for nearly six years before filing suit on July 19, 1999.)

        William Lee: When Mr. Lee was terminated in September 1991, he was so busy trying to get a job that he did not think about why he may have been terminated. He did not realize that his age might have been a factor until well after November 1992, and perhaps much later than that. He first thought his ethnicity was the reason because almost all of his colleagues who are minorities were also laid off. (Mr. Lee was notified of termination his in September 1992 and admits to knowing of the suit for nearly six years before joining the instant suit on July 19, 1999.)

        Theresa Luker: Ms. Luker was not aware that her termination might have been based on her age until she saw the August 15, 1997, article in the Times-Picayune reporting the certification of the case as a class action. This is when she first realized that her termination might have been based on her age. (Ms. Luker was notified of her termination October 14, 1992 and admits to knowing of the suit for nearly two years before joining the instant suit on July 19,1999.)

        Glenn Parsons: Mr. Parsons did not realize that his termination might have been based on his age until some time in the last week of January 1993 or the first week of February 1993, when he had a phone call from one of his former employees, Harold Stephens, who had just been terminated. Mr. Stephens told Mr. Parsons that a number of Entergy employees felt that they had been the victims of age discrimination in their terminations, and that they were discussing legal options. Until this phone call, all of Mr. Parson's efforts had been devoted to finding another job, and relocating to the Boston area. [In Mr. Parson's statement, he also says:] Until that time [the phone call], I was convinced that I had been terminated because of the merger ... I was not thinking about the ages of others being terminated ... Frankly, I was not worrying about what was going on in New Orleans regarding other former Entergy employees. (Mr. Parsons was notified of his termination on September 1, 1992 and admits to knowing of the suit for nearly two and one half years before filing suit on August 11, 1995.)

        Carlos Savona: Mr. Savona first learned that his termination might be based on his age in November 1996, when he learned through an acquaintance who had also worked for LP & L that there was an age discrimination suit pending. Shortly after that, [in December of 1996] Mr. Savona contacted the Law Office of Thomas G. Wilkinson. Prior to 1996, there was no reason for him to believe that his termination was for any reason other than for staff reduction. (Mr. Savona was notified of his termination in June of 1991. There is no information contained in the record regarding the date that he joined the suit.)

        Lewis Touna: Mr. Touna first became aware that his termination might have been based on his age in July 1993 from some former fellow workers and retirees [who] explained to him the pattern of termination that had taken place. It was at this time that he realized that he was among those who may .have been terminated based- on their age. (Mr. Touna was notified of his termination in June of 1991 and admits to knowing of his cause of action for nearly six years before filing suit on July 19, 1999.)

      . Winbush is an exception to the rule founded by the Louisiana courts of appeal. The courts of appeal deviated from the correct reasoning employed in Winbush in 1995 and have continued to erroneously rule that the damage is sustained from termination rather than from notification. See Harris v. Home Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 95-223 (La.App. 3 Cir.1995), 663 So.2d 92; Brunett v. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 96 0535 (La.App. 1 Cir.1996), 685 So.2d 618. This line of reasoning is incorrect and we now reject these cases and those with similar holdings for the more appropriate Rides/Chardon standard.

      . We distinguish the instant case from those in which the doctrine has traditionally been applied: those cases involving medical malpractice actions (In Re: Medical Review Panel of Howard, 573 So.2d 472 (La.1991); Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 92-3086 (La.4/28/94), 636 So.2d 211 [Prescriptive period did not commence until plaintiffs discovered the damage, the delict and their relationship, when disease was diagnosed]); long-latency diseases (Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 52 F.3d 524 (5 Cir.1995) [Plaintiff cannot learn of damages suffered until many years after exposure]; Cole v. Celotex, 620 So.2d 1154 (La.1993) [Damage is considered to have been sustained only when it has manifested itself with sufficient certainty to support the accrual of the cause of action]; Watkins v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., 466 So.2d 636 (La.App. 5 Cir.1985), Richardson, Jr. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 600 So.2d 801 (La.App. 5 Cir.1992) [Where a progressive occupational disease is involved, prescription begins to run when the disease has manifested itself and the victim is aware of it]); or torts involving juveniles (Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 206 [Doctrine of contra non valentem suspended running of prescription until parents of molested child learned about molestation]). None of these circumstances exist in this case and are easily distinguishable because the plaintiffs in those cases were prevented from knowing of their damages until some time after the action or inaction of the defendant, i.e. the damages manifested at a later date.

      . Additionally, plaintiffs themselves establish that they filed suit more than one year after finding out about the class action suit or alleged acts of discrimination against others. Some of the plaintiffs waited as long as six and one half years before joining the suit.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Ronald L. HANKS v. KINETICS GROUP, INC.
    No. 2003-CC-3307.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 23, 2004.
   In re Kinetics Systems Caribe, Inc., et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist-3, No. 02-05904; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 03-01354.

Granted and remanded to the court of appeal for briefing, argument and opinion. All proceedings before the Office of Workers’ Compensation are stayed pending the judgment of the court of appeal. In remanding, it is not our intent to dictate a result.


author: JOHNSON, J.,

text:
    Nettie WENSLOW, et al. v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-0244.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 26, 2004.
   In re Wenslow, Nettie et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 204,765; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 04-00065.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J.,

dissents from the denial. Plaintiff is entitled to question defendant’s expert, Dr. Steve Zuckerman, with reference to his credentials and qualifications. This includes an inquiry into the status of his medical license.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Aubrey J. LEBLANC, Jr.
    No. 2003-KO-0570.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 27, 2004.
   In re LeBlanc, Aubrey J. Jr.;—Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated October 17, 2003, 21st Judicial District Court Div. “G”, No. 90790G; Parish of Tangipahoa, Court of Appeal, First Circuit No. 2001 KA 2856.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Perry VELARGO, et al. v. COLUMBIA LADDER, INC.
    No. 2004-CC-0255.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2004.
   In re Columbia Ladder Inc. et al.; New York Liquidation Bureau;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 567-336; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 04-C-81.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    Bonnie CHAMPLIN, et al. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al. Tara C. Hudson, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. General Motors Corporation, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-0162.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 28, 2004.
   In re General Motors Corporation et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Catahoula, 7th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 21,885, 21,886, 21,851; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 03-01628.

Denied.


text:
    Allison HERRERA and Juan Herrera v. Jared D. DOISE, et al. Allison A. Herrera and Juan Herrera v. Courtney Bueker, et al.
    No. 2004-CC-0272.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 29, 2004.
   In re Herrera, Allison; Herrera, Juan;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, Nos. 2003-1650, 2003-4250; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 03-01668.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. James E. WASHINGTON, Jr.
    No. 2003-KK-2890.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 220,543; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38128-KW.

Granted. The application for writ of certiorari filed on behalf of the State is granted. The court of appeal’s decision is reversed. The trial court decision denying defendant’s motion to quash the indictment is reinstated. LSA-C.Cr.P.art. 465; State v. Liner; 373 So.2d 121, 123 (La.1979).


text:
    Carla SEPCICH v. The CITY OF GRETNA, et al.
    No. 2003-CC-3061.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Gretna City of et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 549-612; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-C-1026.

Granted. The court of appeal is ordered to allow relator to supplement its application with the missing exhibits and consider the application, as supplemented, on the merits.

KIMBALL, J., would deny on showing made.


text:
    Carla SEPCICH v. The CITY OF GRETNA, Titan Indemnity Insurance Company, the Knights of King Arthur, Inc., Transamerica Assurance Company, Hattie F. Naquin, and Allstate Property and Casualty Company.
    No. 2003-CC-3156.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Louisiana State of; Transportation & Dev. Dept. of;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 549-612; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-C-1125.

Granted. The court of appeal is ordered to allow relator to supplement its application with the missing exhibits and consider the application, as supplemented, on the merits.

KIMBALL, J., would deny on showing made.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Renaldo CARTER.
    No. 2004-KH-0151.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Carter, Renaldo;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 438-194.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the filing to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, for its consolidation.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Leonard FARVE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2001-KH-3297.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Farve, Leonard;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s order dated October 25, 2002; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, Nos. 94-4203, 94-4204, 94-4280; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 01-KH-98.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael LEBLANC v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3143.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Michael LeBlanc; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated November 26, 2003; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. G. No. 4-91-739; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 00 KW 1252.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Kevin WEST v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-3279.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re West, Kevin;—Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated December 19, 2003; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B. No. 96127; First Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 2003 KW 1749.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    Wendell G. WATTS and Catherine G. Watts, Individually and on behalf of Their Minor Daughter, Tracy Leigh Watts v. Larry J. SULLIVAN, State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
    No. 2003-C-3002.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Sullivan, Larry J. et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 473,043; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 1627.

Not considered; not timely filed.


text:
    Kevin PETERSON v. Kelly WARD, et al.
    No. 2002-CI-2996.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Peterson, Kevin;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 35,284; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,370-CA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Karl G. DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3050.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Davis, Karl G.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 410-831; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-1592.

Denied. State ex rel. Bernard v. Cr.D.C., 94-2247, p. 1 (La.4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, 1175.


text:
    Florentino GARCIA v. Richard STALDER, et al.
    No. 2002-CI-3052.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Garcia, Florentino;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 425,621; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 CA 1786.

Denied.


text:
    Kevin PETERSON v. John TOFFTON, Kelly Ward, Ray Hanson, and La. Dept. of Corrections.
    No. 2002-CI-3073.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Peterson, Kevin;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 35285; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36372-CA.

Denied.


text:
    Donald BREWSTER v. James LEBLANC, Warden, Dixon Correctional Institute, Director of Parole and State of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-CI-3076.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Brewster, Donald;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 478,817; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 CA 1784.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    Charles CARTER v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; Richard Stalder, Secretary, Department of Public Safety & Corrections; Raphael Augustine, Classification Officer and Sergeant Wright, I-B Term Security.
    No. 2002-CI-3228.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Carter, Charles;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 469,205; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 CA 2841.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph V. FOSTER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2002-KH-3237.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Foster, Joseph V., Jr.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 4868; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2000 KA 1766.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Maurice ANDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0017.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Anderson, Maurice;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 89033, 89030, 88975, 87213, 85867, 83443, 83333, 83332, 81340, 79727, 79726, 73656, 71347; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 1158.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Erran EVANS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0019.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Evans, Erran;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 95-467; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1145.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Louis ALEXANDER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Alexander, Louis;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 97-7259; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1142.

Denied. Repetitive. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Nathan WEBSTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0074.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Webster, Nathan;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 371-320; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-2111.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0079.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Williams, Michael;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 96-2599; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 00-KA-1170.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Samuel Lee HAMILTON, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0081.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Hamilton, Samuel Lee Jr.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 9-88-898; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 0331.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Charlie PRICE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0095.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Price, Charlie;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Desoto, 11th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 54,686; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37081-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John K. HILL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0102.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Hill, John K.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 390-046; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-1881.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Dougherty D. SINGLETON, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0103.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Singleton, Dougherty D.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 01-5165, 01-4395; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1194.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gregory Tyrone HAYES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0105.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Haynes, Gregory Tyrone;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 02-99-208; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 0656.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jeffrey NELSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0106.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Nelson, Jeffrey;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, Nos. 4-94-377, 5-95-1868, 5-95-1865, 5-95-1864, 5-95-1866; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 1864.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eddie Joe BAILEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0120.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Bailey, Eddie Joe;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 65,713, 264,687; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,915 KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Antoine SANDERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0121.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Sanders, Antoine;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 96-5117; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1149.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Askari HINTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0123.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Hinton, Askari;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 01-0305; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1143.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0132.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Williams, Donald;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 305-606.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Devine JORDAN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0154.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Jordan, Devine;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 98-0657; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1259.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terry WOODS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0172.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Woods, Terry;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 386-934; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2000-KA-2712.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darren HAYWOOD v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0180.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Haywood, Darren;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 281-981.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eric D. CALVIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0183.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Calvin, Eric D.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 97-7394; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1052.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bernis BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Brown, Bernis;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 90-3893; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-1147.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Roy GREEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0185.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Green, Roy;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Desoto, 11th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 97-0197; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36843-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Carl SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-0191.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Smith, Carl;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 93-6517; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KH-905.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    Kevin PETERSON v. Pam AUSTIN. Kevin Peterson v. Sgt. B. Hall, et al.
    No. 2003-CI-0510.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Peterson Kevin;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Claiborne, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 35,148; and Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court No. 463628; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 36,365-CA, 36,582-CA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Phil RANDALL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KP-0906.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 1-99-266; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 1470.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J„ recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Phillip ANTHONY v. Burl CAIN, Warden.
    No. 2003-KP-1181.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Anthony, Phillip;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 387-535.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Patrick BRIDGES.
    No. 2003-KP-1200.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Bridges, Patrick;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 363-433; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-K-0140.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Preston R. ANDERSON, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KP-1298.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Anderson, Preston R. Jr.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 15448; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0313.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell SMITH.
    No. 2003-KP-1377.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re State of Louisiana;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 9-00-55; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0456.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Allen ANDERSON.
    No. 2003-KP-1390.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Anderson, Allen;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 233762.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Quincy BROWN.
    No. 2003-K-1836.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Brown, Quincy;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 406-784; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-1217.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kinley ROGERS.
    No. 2003-KO-2137.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Rogers, Kinley;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 02-2294; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-276.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cleveland PARKER.
    No. 2003-K-2150.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Parker, Cleveland;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 345607; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 2631.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ralph R. STOGNER, III.
    No. 2003-K-2151.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Stogner, Ralph R. III;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 292218; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 1884.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Donald Ray JOHNSON.
    No. 2003-K-2152.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Johnson, Donald Ray;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 347895; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 2429.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marlo CHARLES.
    No. 2003-K-2160.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Charles, Marlo;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 345943; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 2520.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kendrick TURNER.
    No. 2003-KO-2170.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Turner, Kendrick;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 00-4939; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-KA-325.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence T. WEHNER, Jr.
    No. 2003-KO-2191.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Wehner, Lawrence T. Jr.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 428-348; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-KA-2193.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Sean F. SMALL.
    No. 2003-KO-2202.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Small, Sean F.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 209556; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,134-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Larry HOLLINS, Jr.
    No. 2003-K-2213.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Hollins, Larry Jr.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 01-CR-000387; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 2650.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Leroy GIPSON, Jr.
    No. 2003-KO-2238.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Gipson, Leroy Jr.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 209,198; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,132-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ralph R. STOGNER, III.
    No. 2003-KO-2239.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Stogner, Ralph R. III;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 292218; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 1884.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Preston Scott CORKERN.
    No. 2003-KO-2295.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Corkern, Preston Scott;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. CR2 80439; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KA 0001.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Billy STANLEY, Jr.
    No. 2003-KK-2298.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Stanley, Billy Jr.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 03-CR-000220; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0855.

Denied.


text:
    Cherie SHUMATE and All Other Similarly Situated Persons v. WARD II WATER DISTRICT, Livingston Parish.
    No. 2003-C-2962.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Ward II Water District Livingston Parish; Trinity Universal Insurance Company;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 86775; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2276.

Denied.


text:
    Klint L. FRUGE v. HERBERT OILFIELD CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al.
    No. 2003-C-2997.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Herbert Oilfield Construction Inc. et al.; Chavez, Raul; AXA Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 00-3250; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. OS-349.

Denied.


text:
    Harry T. HOWARD, III, Jarrell E. Godfrey, Jr. Delores Mason Smith, Elizabeth Mason Smith Purcell, Macy O. Teetor, II, Marguerite Pringle Teetor, and Twydor Castle, L.L.C. v. PARISH OF JEFFERSON and The Fourth Jefferson Drainage District.
    No. 2003-C-2999.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Fourth Jefferson Drainage District; Parish of Jefferson;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 579-105; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-482.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Verna Mae Romero GILLIS.
    No. 2003-C-3000.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Gautreaux, Lynette Romero; Barry, Cynthia Romero; Reynolds, Carol Romero; Kilchrist, Yvonne Romero;— Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 17524; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-467.

Denied.


text:
    Richard Wayne KITCHENS v. TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE VENTURES, INC., and Transocean Offshore USA, Inc.
    No. 2003-C-3001.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Kitchens, Richard Wayne;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 105,894; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2515.

Denied.


text:
    Dylan A. SHILG v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and Mark Midboe.
    No. 2003-CC-3003.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Shilg, Dylan A.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 485,013; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1924.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Sebron MAGEE, Sr. v. Otis D. BROWN.
    No. 2003-C-3016.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Magee, Sebron Sr.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2000-975; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0600.

Denied.


text:
    Richard STERLING v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO.
    No. 2003-C-3017.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Asplundh Tree Expert Co.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. #4, No. 00-05514; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-266.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    OLD CARROLLTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, et al. v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS by and through Its BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS and Its Department of Public Safety and Permits.
    No. 2003-C-3021.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re New Orleans City of; New Orleans Board/Zoning Adjustments; Public Safety & Permits Dept. of; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 01-20620; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0711.

Denied.


text:
    Mary Louise LEGER and Roger Leger v. Joann CAPEL, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Anitra L. Hanks, and Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company.
    No. 2003-C-3022.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 77,963; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-170.

Denied.


text:
    Ileene BROOKS v. WINN-DIXIE LOUISIANA, INC.
    No. 2003-C-3023.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Brooks, Ileene;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 2000-12199; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0122.

Denied.


text:
    OLD CARROLLTON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, et al. v. The CITY OF NEW ORLEANS by and through Its BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS and Its Department of Public Safety and Permits.
    No. 2003-C-3026.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re St. Andrew’s Church;—Other; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, No. 01-20620; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0711.

Denied.


text:
    Alvin C. COPELAND v. TREASURE CHEST CASINO, LLC and Robert J. Guidry.
    No. 2003-CC-3027.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Treasure Chest Casino, LLC;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 464-607; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1322.

Denied.


text:
    Earl Lee SCOTT and Felicia A. Scott v. James Ray ROBERTS and State of La, Thru the DOTD, et al.
    No. 2003-C-3028.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Transportation & Development Department of; Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. C-2000-0957; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-435.

Denied.


text:
    Arnold J. AMBEAU v. CAJUN CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
    No. 2003-C-3029.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Ambeau, Arnold J.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. No. 5, No. 01-08171; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2503.

Denied.


text:
    WESTLAKE PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY and Zurich American Insurance Company v. TMG INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. et al.
    No. 2003-C-3030.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Evanston Insurance Company;— Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2001-1527; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-451.

Denied.


text:
    In re SUCCESSION OF Barbara Joan Blundell DAVIS.
    No. 2003-CC-3038.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Davis, Lane; Davis, Jeanne’;—Other(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 569-913; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1105.

Denied.


text:
    Charles R. QUINN v. CONTINENTAL INS. CO., et al.
    No. 2003-C-3032.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Quinn, Charles R.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 202,199; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-350.

Denied.


text:
    WESTLAKE PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY and Zurich American Insurance Company v. TMG INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC. et al.
    No. 2003-C-3033.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re TMG Industrial Services Inc. et al.; United National Insurance Company; Meyer Group L.L.C.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2001-1527; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 03-451.

Denied.


text:
    Alvin C. COPELAND v. TREASURE CHEST CASINO, LLC and Robert J. Guidry.
    No. 2003-CC-3039.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Guidry, Robert J.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 464-607; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No(s). 2003 CW 1184, 2003 CW 0760.

Denied.


text:
    Jane DOE v. SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY.
    No. 2003-CC-3041.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Doe, Jane;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2000-002561; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1503.

Denied.


text:
    Kerry L. KING v. WILLSTAFF WORLDWIDE, INC.
    No. 2003-C-3069.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re King, Kerry L.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 05, No. 01-05692; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 2625.

Denied.


text:
    Carmen BALTHAZAR v. Lois WASHINGTON and Don Washington.
    No. 2003-CC-3070.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Washington, Lois et al.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, Nos. 2001-6742 (6724); to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1698.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Marina KAHN v. NEW ORLEANS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
    No. 2003-C-3078.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Kahn, Marina;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission, No. 6498; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-1178.

Denied.


text:
    Tirrell L. SELVAGE v. GAINEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC., Aero Bulk Carrier, Inc., Glenn Anderson, Individually and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company.
    No. 2003-C-3085.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Selvage, Tirrell L.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 99-8505; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0959.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.


text:
    Laura Kathleen HAY and Technically Speaking, Inc. v. BANK ONE, NA.
    No. 2003-CC-3090.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Hay, Laura K.; Technically Speaking, Inc.;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2001-9122; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1029.

Denied.


text:
    Jerry HARRIS v. ALEXANDRIA MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD.
    No. 2003-C-3108.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Harris, Jerry;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 207,106; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 03-465.

Denied.


text:
    Kenneth Michael WRIGHT v. Gregory J. LOGAN.
    No. 2003-CC-3110.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Wright, Kenneth M.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2003-1459; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1541.

Denied.


text:
    William J. BAGLEY, Jr., James Layerle and Keith Osborne v. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and City of Kenner.
    No. 2003-C-3128.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Bagley, William J. Jr. et al.; Layerle, James; Osborne, Keith; Simon, Catherine;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 556-166; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-461.

Denied.


text:
    Pamela LEE-HOOKFIN v. ADVANTAGE NURSING SERVICES, INC. and Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Corporation.
    No. 2003-C-3136.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Lee-Hookfin, Pamela;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 07, No. 01-04452; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-340.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant the writ.


text:
    C.M. THIBODAUX, LTD. v. EXXON MOBIL CORP., et al.
    No. 2003-CC-3143.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Atofina Petrochemicals Inc. et al.; Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp.; Shell Oil Co.; Shell Offshore Inc.; SWEPI LP; Amerada Hess Corp.; Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; Texaco Inc.; Amoco Production Co.; BP America Production Co.; Arco Oil & Gas Co.; Conoco Phillips Co.; EOG Resources Inc.; Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. (LL & E); Marathon Oil Co.; Union Oil Co. of California (UNOCAL); Oxy U.S.A. Inc.; Placid Oil Co.; Sexton Oil & Mineral Corp.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 01-16872; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1001.

Denied.


text:
    Bradley CATHEY v. LOUISIANA STATE RACING COMMISSION.
    No. 2003-C-3153.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Cathey, Bradley;—Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2002-6688; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0923.

Denied.


text:
    L.V. MANUEL, as Provisional Tutor of the Minors, Jessica Marie Laborde and Christopher Jacob Laborde v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION.
    No. 2003-C-3157.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re New York Life Insurance & Annuity Corp.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 535-301; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-CA-458.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilbert RIDEAU.
    No. 2003-KK-3204.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Rideau, Wilbert;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 15321-01; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 03-01315.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilbert RIDEAU.
    No. 2003-KK-3205.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Rideau, Wilbert;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 15321-01; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 03-01316.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilbert RIDEAU.
    No. 2003-KK-3206.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Rideau, Wilbert;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 15321-01; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 03-01317.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilbert RIDEAU.
    No. 2003-KK-3207.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Rideau, Wilbert;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 15321-01; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 03-01318.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Randy LAVERGNE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2003-KH-3396.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Lavergne, Randy;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 12-97-230; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 00-KW-0825.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Wilbert RIDEAU.
    No. 2003-KK-3500.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Rideau, Wilbert;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 15321-01; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 03-01322.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ardic FIELDS.
    No. 2004-KH-0052.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Fields, Ardic;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 212,841; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 38251-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Melvin SEALS.
    No. 2004-KH-0114.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Seals, Melvin;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 03-3979.

Denied.


text:
    Patricia Wallace CUNNINGHAM, Wife of/ and Ernest Cunningham v. CHALMETTE MEDICAL CENTER, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. and ABC Insurance Company. Patricia Wallace Cunningham, Wife of/ and Ernest E. Cunningham v. Chalmette Medical Center, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark S. Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. IMG Healthcare, L.L.C., and UHS of New Orleans, Inc.
    No. 2003-C-3163.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Chalmette Medical Center et al.; UHS of New Orleans Inc.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, Nos. 99-08353, 02-05539; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-0214, 2003-CA-0215.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., recused.


text:
    Patricia Wallace CUNNINGHAM, Wife of/ and Ernest Cunningham v. CHALMETTE MEDICAL CENTER, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. and ABC Insurance Company. Patricia Wallace Cunningham, Wife of/ and Ernest E. Cunningham v. Chalmette Medical Center, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark S. Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. IMG Healthcare, L.L.C., and UHS of New Orleans, Inc.
    No. 2003-C-3162.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Vrahas, Mark S. M.D.; Kishner, Stephen M.D.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, Nos. 99-08353, 02-05539; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-0214, 2003-CA-0215.

Denied.


text:
    Patricia Wallace CUNNINGHAM, Wife of/ and Ernest Cunningham v. CHALMETTE MEDICAL CENTER, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. and ABC Insurance Company. Patricia Wallace Cunningham, Wife of/ and Ernest E. Cunningham v. Chalmette Medical Center, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark S. Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. IMG Healthcare, L.L.C., and UHS of New Orleans, Inc.
    No. 2003-C-3158.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Hill, Michael K. M.D.; IMG Healthcare L.L.C.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, Nos. 99-08353, 02-05539; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-0214, 2003-CA-0215.

Denied.


text:
    Patricia Wallace CUNNINGHAM, Wife of/ and Ernest Cunningham v. CHALMETTE MEDICAL CENTER, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. and ABC Insurance Company. Patricia Wallace Cunningham, Wife of/ and Ernest E. Cunningham v. Chalmette Medical Center, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark S. Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. IMG Healthcare, L.L.C., and UHS of New Orleans, Inc.
    No. 2003-C-3152.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Gessner, Ralph M.D.; Brent, Walter H, Jr. M.D.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, Nos. 99-08353, 02-05539; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-0214, 2003-CA-0215.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., recused.


text:
    Patricia Wallace CUNNINGHAM, Wife of/ and Ernest Cunningham v. CHALMETTE MEDICAL CENTER, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. and ABC Insurance Company. Patricia Wallace Cunningham, Wife of/ and Ernest E. Cunningham v. Chalmette Medical Center, Ralph Gessner, M.D., Mark S. Vrahas, M.D., John T. Thien, M.D., Michael K. Hill, M.D., Stephen Kishner, M.D., Walter H. Brent, Jr., M.D. IMG Healthcare, L.L.C., and UHS of New Orleans, Inc.
    No. 2003-C-3132.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Thien, John T. M.D.;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. C, Nos. 99-08353, 02-05539; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 2003-CA-0214, 2003-CA-0215.

Denied.


text:
    Zachary CALVIN, Sr. and Kim Jackson Individually and on behalf of Their Minor Child, Zachary Calvin, Jr. v. JANBAR ENTERPRISES, INC., Brian Conners, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2003-C-3102.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 30, 2004.
   In re Calvin, Zachary Sr. et al.; Jackson, Kim;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. D, No. 00-10056; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0382.

Denied.


author: ^JjJLOVE, J.

text:
    STANDARD MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. Lakisha O. WELLS.
    No. 2002-C-0895.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Oct. 9, 2002.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 2002.
    Adriel G. Arceneaux, Graham & Arcen-eaux, LLC, New Orleans, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee.
    Patrick D. Breeden, New Orleans, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant.
    Court composed of Chief Judge WILLIAM H. BYRNES III, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, Jr. .
   ^JjJLOVE, J.

Plaintiff-Appellee, Standard Mortgage Corporation, filed a Petition for Executory Process concerning a mortgage note that was in arrears owed by Defendant-Appellant, Lakisha Wells. The trial court found in favor of Plaintiff and issued a writ of seizure and sale of the mortgaged property. Defendant is appealing the trial court’s ruling. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 3, 1997, Defendant-Appellant Lakisha Wells (“Wells”) entered into a mortgage agreement with Gilyot Mortgage Corporation for a home in New Orleans, Louisiana, in the amount of $25,562.00. This mortgage note was assigned, transferred, and delivered by Gilyot Mortgage Corporation to Plaintiff-Appellee Standard Mortgage Corporation (“Standard”) on this same date.

On or about March 17, 1999, a fire resulting from faulty wiring damaged Wells’ property. Standard was the depository for payments from the insurance company. Standard issued the first check for an installment payment for repairs to Wells and the contractor, jointly. The contractor commenced work, but Wells alleged the repairs were never completed. According to Wells, the contractor | ^contacted the insurance company directly posing as her husband to obtain possession of the last two checks. The work was never completed, and Wells alleged this prevented her from being able to obtain the proper licenses from the city so that she could lease a portion of her home for revenue. This lack of revenue created a financial hardship on Wells. Wells claimed she contacted Standard to resolve this matter, but it was never settled. Standard alleged that it issued the installment payments to the contractor in accordance with the contract Wells had with the contractor, and made a visual inspection before issuing final payment.

On August 3, 2001, Standard filed a Petition for Executory Process against Wells for being in default for failure to pay mortgage payments from March 1, 2001 to date, and the trial court issued a Writ of Seizure and Sale on August 13, 2001. On October 23, 2001, Wells filed a petition for an Order to Suspend the Seizure and Sale and/or Preliminary Injunction and/or Permanent Injunction and/or Damages and/or for the Return of Seized Property. Wells subpoenaed Standard on three separate occasions to take their deposition regarding the amount due, to which Standard replied that they had no obligation to submit to a deposition. Wells later filed a Motion for Sanctions against Standard for failure to appear at a deposition regarding this matter, and Standard responded by filing an Exception of No Cause of Action.

On January 25, 2002, Wells was ordered to pay all installments due to that date. On February 27, 2002, after motions were made at a contradictory hearing, the trial court denied Wells’ petition for the Order to Suspend the Seizure and Sale and/or Preliminary Injunction and/or Permanent Injunction and/or Damages and/or for the Return of Seized Property. Wells’ Motion for Sanctions was denied and Standard’s Exception of No Cause of Action was granted.

J¿DISCUSSION

Wells argues that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to transcribe the hearing on the Petition for a Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Compel Standard to Appear at a Deposition; (2) holding one cannot pray for damages and sanctions in the petition for injunctive relief; (3) failing to sanction Standard for failure to appear at a deposition; (4) failing to issue a preliminary injunction; (5) requiring more than a cost bond for the suspensive appeal; (6) dismissing the lis pendens; (7) granting Standard’s Exception of No Cause of Action; and (8) finding Wells had no cause of action because the injunction and/or damage petition was included in the same case as the Petition for Executory Process.

Under La. C.C.P. art. 2751, “[t]he defendant in the executory proceeding may arrest the seizure and sale of the property by injunction when the debt secured by the security interest, mortgage, or privilege is extinguished, or is legally unenforceable, or if the procedure required by law for an executory proceeding has not been followed.” The issues for this Court to address are whether Standard was the proper entity to move for executory process and whether Standard properly followed the procedure for executory process.

Under La. R.S. 9:4422(2) when there is a foreclosure by executory process, “[t]he assignment, pledge, negotiation, or other transfer of any obligation secured by a mortgage or privilege may be proven by any form of private writing, and such writing shall be deemed authentic for the purposes of executory process.” Wells argues there was no legal assignment of the mortgage note or a corporate resolution giving authority to anyone to transfer the mortgage note. The record contains a copy of the “Assignment of Note' and Mortgage,” and in the signature portion of the note itself it states “Pay to the Order of Standard Mortgage Incorporation Without Recourse: By: Gilyot Mortgage Corporation” where Wells and a corporate officer for Gilyot Mortgage Corporation and Standard all signed. According to La. R.S. 9:4422(2), the assignment may be proven by any writing, in this case “the assignment,” and it must be deemed authentic for the purpose of the executory process. Therefore, we find there was no procedural error by Standard petitioning for execu-tory process whereby an authentic assignment was attached to the petition.

Wells further argues that the ex-ecutory proceedings were improper because the amount of the debt continued to change during the course of the proceedings. Further, Wells attempted to determine the amount in question by deposing an officer of Standard, but Standard refused to appear at any of the three scheduled depositions. Proof of the existence of a debt on which the suit is based is a link in the chain of evidence necessary to justify executory proceedings. Louisiana National Bank of Baton Rouge v. Heroman, 280 So.2d 362 (La.App. 1 DCA 1973), citing, American Budget Plan, Inc. v. Small, 229 So.2d 190, 193 (La.App. 4 Cir.1969). In the Petition for Executory Process, Standard prayed for the principal sum of $24,786.72 with 8.5% interest thereon from February 1, 2001, until paid, together with accumulated late charges, any additional amounts advanced by Standard for taxes, insurance, assessments, • .repairs - to and maintenance and preservation of the mortgaged property. Standard also prayed for 25% attorney’s fees on the total amount of the principal, interest and all current and future advances, together with all costs of the executory proceedings. The trial court granted this. in the Writ of Seizure and Sale. From the record, the amount due continued to increase throughout the proceedings as the taxes, insurance, late charges, and inspection and preservation costs for the mortgage property continued to accrue in accordance |5with the writ. We do not find there was any procedural error in the executory proceedings by incorporating the accruing costs into the final amount due. Therefore, this argument is without merit.

Wells offers two defenses as to why she was in arrears on her mortgage payments: (1) Standard refused to accept her payments and (2) Standard was negligent dispersing money from the insurance claim resulting in unnecessary financial hardship on Wells. Neither of these claims is a ground for arresting the seizure and sale of Wells’ property, because Wells has not shown that the debt is legally unenforceable or has been extinguished. Wells acknowledges that the mortgage still burdens her property, but has entered no evidence into the record that valid attempts were made to make the mortgage payments. In the alternative, Wells argues Standard’s mismanagement of insurance funds was the cause of her failure to make the mortgage payments. However, Wells offers no evidence that this took place or that Standard’s alleged actions violate the executory process.

Wells also argues the trial court erred by not sanctioning Standard for failure to appear at any of the three scheduled depositions. Wells issued subpoenas for the purpose of deposing Standard to determine the amount due from the execu-tory proceeding. However, Standard provided updated arrears values to Wells and the lower court at various stages of the proceedings, which were the same information to be elicited from the depositions. The trial court denied Wells’ motion to compel Standard to appear at a deposition, and furthermore the trial court granted Standard’s Exception of No Cause of Action, which makes discovery a moot issue. We find no error by the trial court for denying Wells’ Motion for Sanctions, because there was no cause of action and the information to be discovered was 1 fientered into the record. Further, the awarding of sanctions is a discretionary matter for the trial court and we find the trial court did not abuse its vast discretion.

Wells argues that the trial court erred by requiring a cost bond more than the suspensive appeal. The cost bond in this case was set for $15,000. Under La. C.C.P. art. 2642, in a suspensive appeal “the security therefore shall be for an amount exceeding by one-half the balance due on the debt secured by the mortgage or privilege sought to be enforced, including principal, interest to date of the order of appeal, and attorney’s fee, but exclusive of court cost.” The trial court did not require a cost bond more than the appeal, but instead required a bond less than required under the article because the principal under the mortgage note was $24,786.72 which did not include the interest and attorney’s fees.

Wells contends that the trial court erred by not transcribing the hearing for Wells’ Petition for a Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Compel Standard to Appear at a Deposition. There is no requirement that oral arguments at a hearing be transcribed. Finally, because we find no error on the part of the trial court as to the executory proceedings, this Court will pretermit discussion of the assignment of errors regarding the preliminary injunction, and damages and sanctions for in-junctive relief.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons cited above, we find no error on the part of the trial court and affirm its rulings in this matter.

AFFIRMED.


author: hDECUIR, Judge.

text:
    Dolwin Dale SOILEAU v. Tony Randall HOUSER and Kimberly Knight Houser.
    No. 03-0032.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    April 30, 2003.
    Paul E. Brown, Attorney at Law, Eunice, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee, Dolwin Dale Soileau.
    Aaron F. McGee, Attorney at Law, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, Tony Randall Houser.
    Benjamin M. Burson, Attorney at Law, Eunice, LA, for Defendant/Appellee, Kimberly Knight Houser.
    Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, OSWALD A. DECUIR, and GLENN B. GREMILLION, Judges.
   hDECUIR, Judge.

Dolwin Dale Soileau filed suit against Tony Randall Houser and Kimberly Knight Houser, seeking to establish filiation of the minor child born to Kimberly during her marriage to Tony. Soileau asserted in his petition that he is the biological father of the child; he sought custody and a change of the child’s name.

Kimberly and Tony, now divorced, opposed Soileau’s action. The matter was presented to a hearing officer of the Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, who held an intake conference and issued findings of fact and recommendations relative to paternity, custody, and visitation. Kimberly timely objected to the hearing officer’s recommendations. A hearing before the district court was scheduled; however, before the matter could be heard, Tony appealed the recommendations of the hearing officer, and the district court proceedings were delayed pending the outcome of this appeal.

The case before us is not ripe for appeal because no final appealable judgment has been rendered. See Smith v. Audubon Ins. Co., 602 So.2d 720 (La.1992). Once a hearing officer’s recommendations are objected to, the matter must proceed to adjudication in the district court, in accordance with the provisions of La.R.S. 46:236.5(C).

The hearing officer’s recommendations serve as an interim order during the pendency of the district court proceedings. However, we are constrained to vacate the recommendations in this instance as we find the hearing officer exceeded his jurisdictional authority. The duties and powers of a hearing officer are delineated by statute and are limited in scope. La.R.S. 46:236.5(0). A hearing officer is not authorized to hear contested issues of child custody or make a recommendation on the question of custody. La.R.S. 46:236.5(0(3); Local Rules, 27th JDC, Title V, Rule 5(d)(ii); Muller v. Muller, 600 So.2d 933 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/29/92). Furthermore, a | ^hearing officer is not authorized to determine paternity matters brought by a private party. La.R.S. 46:236.5(C)(3)(d).

Accordingly, because the hearing officer was without subject matter jurisdiction to determine matters of custody and paternity, we must vacate his recommendations and order that the parties return to the custody and visitation arrangement previously in place. This matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Costs of the appeal are assessed to Tony Randall Houser.

VACATED AND REMANDED.