source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re Chanci S. SHAW.
    No. 2011-B-1967.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 11, 2012.
   ORDER

| ⅜ Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the response thereto filed by respondent, and the report and recommendation of the hearing committee,

IT IS ORDERED that Chanci S. Shaw, Louisiana Bar Roll number 27641, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.2, pending further orders of this court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Greg G. Guidry

Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    In re Rolanda Gayle Harrell JACKSON.
    No. 2011-B-2533.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 13, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

| ,The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent made an improper payment from her client trust account as a result of her failure to exercise appropriate oversight of her nonlawyer staff. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which respondent acknowledges that her conduct violated Rules 1.15, 5.3(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Rolanda Gayle Harrell Jackson, Louisiana Bar Roll number 22806, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent’s successful completion of a two-year period of supervised probation governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent, the ODC, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

|2IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re Michael Wayne KELLY.
    No. 2011-B-2544.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 13, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

hOn January 19, 2011, we suspended respondent, Michael Wayne Kelly, for a period of eighteen months, with all but one year deferred, for making false representations to a worker’s compensation hearing officer in order to obtain a continuance. In re: Kelly, 10-1934 (La.1/19/11), 54 So.3d 1096. Respondent’s suspension took effect on March 4, 2011, upon our denial of his application for rehearing. In the instant matter, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) moves to make the deferred portion of respondent’s suspension executory, based upon new violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by respondent. Respondent has not opposed the ODC’s petition.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 11, 2011, at which time he was suspended from practicing law, respondent accepted $2,160 from Mary Alice Graham to handle an expungement matter on behalf of her daughter. Neither Ms. Graham nor her daughter was aware that respondent had been suspended by the court effective March 4th and that he could not accept the representation.

Thereafter, according to the complaint filed by Ms. Graham with the ODC, she and her daughter attempted to contact respondent on several occasions to discuss the progress he was making on the ex-pungement petition. When they |2finally reached respondent on June 15, 2011, he falsely informed them that he was “waiting for the judge to sign the paperwork.” In fact, no expungement pleadings had been filed by respondent. Moreover, at no point during this conversation did respondent disclose that he was suspended from the practice of law.

On June 23, 2011, respondent informed Ms. Graham and her daughter for the first time that his law license was suspended and that he “had to go through another attorney” to handle the expungement. Ms. Graham and her daughter denied knowing anything about another attorney, and denied that they had given respondent permission to hire anyone on their behalf. Accordingly, Ms. Graham demanded a refund of the fee she paid so that she could hire new counsel for her daughter. Respondent failed to refund the fee, and on July 26, 2011, Ms. Graham filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent. On September 7, 2011, respondent repaid $1,800 to Ms. Graham. He repaid the remaining $360 on September 16, 2011.

DISCUSSION

We find that after the effective date of his suspension, respondent accepted legal fees from a client, in violation of Rule 5.5(e)(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that a suspended attorney may not “receive, disburse or otherwise handle client funds.” He then did no work on the client’s legal matter, and when confronted by the client, falsely claimed that he was “waiting for the judge to sign the paperwork.” In truth and in fact, no pleadings had been filed on behalf of the client by respondent or anyone else. Finally, respondent waited until after a disciplinary complaint was lodged against him to refund the fees paid by the client. These facts clearly constitute new violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and thereby support the imposition of the deferred portion of the eighteen-month suspension we imposed on January 19, 2011.

|¾Accordingly, we will make the previously deferred portion of respondent’s suspension immediately executory.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the previously deferred portion of the eighteen-month suspension imposed in In re: Kelly, 10-1934 (La.1/19/11), 54 So.3d 1096, is hereby made immediately executory. All costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent, Michael Wayne Kelly, Louisiana Bar Roll number 23159, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re Brandi Traylor BOUTWELL.
    No. 2012-B-0379.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 16, 2012.
   ORDER

|, Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Brandi Traylor Boutwell, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30767, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.2, pending further orders of this court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may seek the appointment of a trustee(s) to protect the interests of respondent’s clients pursuant to the provisions of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 27, if appropriate.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Marcus R. Clark

/s/ Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    In re Jaclyn C. HILL.
    No. 2012-OB-0084.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 28, 2012.
   ORDER

| .The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) is conducting an investigation into allegations that respondent engaged in multiple instances of serious attorney misconduct, including fraud, forgery, and conversion of client and third-party funds. Respondent also continued to practice law after she was placed on interim suspension. Respondent now seeks to permanently resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC has concurred in respondent’s petition.

Having considered the Petition for Permanent Resignation from the Practice of Law filed by Jaclyn C. Hill, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30555, and the concurrence thereto filed by the ODC,

IT IS ORDERED that the request of Jaclyn C. Hill for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline be and is hereby granted, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.1 and Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jaclyn C. Hill shall be permanently prohibited from practicing law in Louisiana or in any other jurisdiction in which she is admitted to the practice of law; shall be permanently prohibited from seeking readmission to the practice of law in this state or in any other jurisdiction in which she is admitted; and shall be permanently prohibited from seeking admission to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Marcus R. Clark

/s/ Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    In re James Phillip GAHARAN, Jr.
    No. 2012-OB-0284.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 28, 2012.
   ORDER

|tThe Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) has filed formal charges against respondent alleging that he committed serious attorney misconduct, the most significant of which involves commingling and conversion of client funds. Respondent now seeks to permanently resign from the practice of law in lieu of discipline. The ODC has concurred in respondent’s petition.

Having considered the Petition for Voluntary Permanent Resignation from the Practice of Law filed by James P. Gahar-an, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 21282, and the concurrence thereto filed by the ODC,

IT IS ORDERED that the request of James P. Gaharan, Jr. for permanent resignation in lieu of discipline be and is hereby granted, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 20.1 and Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James P. Gaharan, Jr. shall be permanently prohibited from practicing law in Louisiana or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted to the practice of law; shall be permanently prohibited from seeking readmission to the practice of law in this state or in any other jurisdiction in which he is admitted; and shall be permanently prohibited from seeking admission to the practice of law in any jurisdiction.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Jeannette Theriot Knoll

/s/ Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    In re Robert C. BASINGER.
    No. 2011-OB-2768.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR.

PER CURIAM.

11 After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Robert C. Basinger, is eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to the following conditions:

1. Petitioner must execute a new five-year recovery agreement with the Lawyers Assistance Program (LAP).

2. The period of this conditional admission shall coincide with the period of petitioner’s LAP agreement. However, petitioner’s conditional admission status shall not be terminated until this court so orders.

3. Petitioner shall be responsible for ensuring that monthly reports of his progress and participation in LAP are forwarded to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC).

4. Upon the expiration of the term of petitioner’s LAP agreement, the Executive Director of LAP shall forward to the ODC (a) a final report of petitioner’s progress and participation in LAP, and (b) a recommendation regarding the need for petitioner’s continued participation in LAP.

5. Following receipt of the report from LAP, the ODC shall file a report in this court in which it shall recommend whether the conditional admission shall be allowed to terminate or shall be extended.

|26. Petitioner shall cooperate with LAP and the ODC, and shall comply with any and all requirements imposed upon him by LAP and the ODC.

Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should he commit any misconduct during the period of probation, his conditional right to practice may be terminated or he may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re William A. ROE.
    No. 2012-B-0264.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 2, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

| fin September 2009, respondent was convicted of three counts of unauthorized use of a movable, violations of La. R.S. 14:68. After formal charges were filed, ' and following the finality of the criminal conviction, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which respondent acknowledges that he has violated Rules 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that William A. Roe, Louisiana Bar Roll number 11384, be and he hereby is disbarred, retroactive to October 14, 2009, the date of his interim suspension. His name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and his license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re John S. ALFORD.
    No. 2012-B-0371.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that, while under the influence of alcohol, respondent drove a motor vehicle without permission of the owner. Respondent subsequently pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized use of a vehicle. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that John S. Alford, Louisiana Bar Roll number 31594, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent’s successful completion of a five-year period of probation governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, I ¡¿with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.


text:
    In re Ray W. TALLEY.
    No. 2012-OB-0506.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 7, 2012.
   ORDER

It Considering the Joint Petition for Transfer to Disability Inactive Status,

IT IS ORDERED that Ray W. Talley, Louisiana Bar Roll number 12636, be and he hereby is transferred to disability inactive status. All disciplinary proceedings against respondent shall be deferred until such time as he resumes active status.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order shall be effective immediately.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Jeannette Theriot Knoll

/s/ Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bryan HILL.
    No. 2011-KK-2585.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

|, Granted in part. In a prosecution for possession of contraband drugs with intent to distribute, evidence of prior acts of distribution is admissible on the question of specific intent. See, e.g., State v. Knighten, 07-1061, p. 2 (La.11/16/07), 968 So.2d 720, 721(“This Court ‘has recognized that evidence of other drug sales is of great probative value in establishing intent to distribute when it is an essential element of the crime charged.’ ”)(quoting State v. Grey, 408 So.2d 1239, 1242 (La.1982)). Evidence that during his arrest on March 29, 2007, for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, defendant stated that he had been dealing drugs for three months to repair his residence at 2125 Allen Street in New Orleans, is relevant to the question of whether he possessed 13 rocks of crack cocaine on April 28, 2009, in front of his house on Allen Street, with the intent to distribute. That a jury acquitted defendant of the prior crime does not preclude the state from introducing the incident as other crimes evidence in the trial of another offense under a lesser eviden-tiary standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 110 S.Ct. 668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990); State v. Cotton, 00-0850 (La.1/29/01), 778 So.2d 569. In all other respects, the application is denied.

JOHNSON, J., would deny.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.


text:
    John J. HUNTER v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE on behalf of LOUISIANA HEALTH CARE SERVICES CENTER FOR UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AT NEW ORLEANS, aka University Hospital.
    No. 2011-C-2841.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   PER CURIAM.

I,Granted. Relator satisfied the requirements of La.Rev.Stat. § 13:5107 by timely requesting service on the Attorney General. See Burnett v. James Constr. Group, 10-2608, p. 4 (La.7/1/11); 66 So.3d 482, 485. While relator’s petition misidentified the defendant, the petition provides sufficient information to notify defendant of the action. Cf. Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So.2d 1083, 1087 (La.1983). Although relator did not satisfy the service requirements of La.Rev.Stat. § 39:1538, the appellate court erred in dismissing the action, rather than permitting relator an opportunity to cure the defect by serving the Office of Risk Management and the Chairman of the LSU Board of Supervisors. See Burnett, 10-2608 at p. 5; 66 So.3d at 485; Whitley v. State, Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. Agric. Mech College, 11-0040, p. 18 (La.7/1/11); 66 So.3d 470, 481. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeal dismissing relator’s claims without prejudice and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

       Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the-opinion.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tyrone LIVAS.
    No. 2012-KK-0294.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    March 9, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 508-289; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1731.

11WRIT GRANTED. Given the evolving circumstances testified to by the police officers, their actions in conducting a protective sweep of the residence for safety concerns were reasonable. The trial court gave no indication that it did not believe the officers’ testimony or had any reason to doubt their credibility. Accordingly, the trial court ruling suppressing the evidence and statements is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court to re-open the motion to suppress hearing for testimony regarding the voluntariness of the defendant’s statements.

JOHNSON, J., would deny.

WEIMER, J., would order a per curiam from the trial judge before resolving this writ.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cedric Dewayne RUSSELL a/k/a Eric Wilson.
    No. 2011-K-2020.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 2012.
   In re Cedric Dewayne Russell a/k/a Eric Wilson; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Divs. 3, 5, No. 253,552; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,426-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Darrel JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0985.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 10, 2012.
   In re Jones, Darrel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Divs. D, I, No. 03-7501; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-200.

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


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ricky LANGSTON.
    No. 2011-KK-2823.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 14, 2012.
   In re Langston, Ricky; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 507-589; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1615.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J„ would grant.

WEIMER, J., would order opposition from the State before denial of the writ is considered.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Bobby D. HIGGINBOTHAM.
    No. 2012-KK-0369.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 15, 2012.
   In re Higginbotham, Bobby D.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tensas, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 79,152; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47221-KH.

Denied on the showing made.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dameion GREENBERRY.
    No. 2012-KK-0350.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 15, 2012.
   In re Greenberry, Dameion; — Defendant; Applying For- Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 504-115; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1616.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Phil DANIEL.
    No. 2012-KK-0352.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 15, 2012.
   In re Daniel, Phil; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06-11-0960; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 2353.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald Ray WALTON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0690.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Walton, Donald Ray; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 540,712; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0333.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. The East Baton Rouge Parish district attorney’s office is ordered to provide relator with an estimate of the costs of reproducing a copy of relator’s case file, if such a file exists. La. Const, art. XII, § 3; R.S. 44:31; R.S. 44:31.1; State ex rel. Barbee v. State, 10-0275 (La.2/4/11), 57 So.3d 318; State ex rel. Leonard v. State, 96-1889 (La.6/13/97), 695 So.2d 1325; State ex rel. Level v. State, 99-2266 (La.12/17/99), 751 So.2d 869; Range v. Moreau, 96-1607 (La.9/3/96), 678 So.2d 537. If no such file exists, and in all other respects, the application is denied.

WEIMER and CLARK, JJ., would deny.


text:
    Rita Renee COOPER v. ADVANCED PAIN INSTITUTE, LLC.
    No. 2011-CC-2701.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Advanced Pain Institute LLC;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipa-hoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 2010-0002971; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1391.

Granted. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and relator’s exception of prematurity is granted for the reasons assigned by the dissenting judge in the court of appeal.


text:
    Jaqueline T. HODGES and HRC Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as Med-Data Management, Inc.) v. Kirk REASONOVER, Esq., Alfred A. Olinde, Jr., Esq. and Reasonover & Olinde, LLC.
    No. 2012-CC-0043.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Kirk Reasonover, Esq., et al.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 11-3391; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. ll-C-1405.

Granted.


text:
    Tanya Lato PONCETI, Individually and on Behalf of Kaitlyn Elizabeth Ponceti v. FIRST LAKE PROPERTIES, INC. d/b/a The Woodlands, and John Doe.
    No. 2011-C-2711.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re First Lake Properties, Inc. d/b/a The Woodlands; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2009-11721; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2065R.

Granted.


text:
    Henry MARANGE, Jr. v. CUSTOM METAL FABRICATORS, INC., et al.
    No. 2011-C-2678.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Custom Metal Fabrications Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, Office of Workers’ Compensation # 3, No. 10-01916; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-743.

Granted.


text:
    Peter D. VIZZI, M.D., a Medical Corporation v. LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT.
    No. 2011-C-2648.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2009-2080; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-623.

Granted.


text:
    Jerri G. SMITKO v. GULF SOUTH SHRIMP, INC.
    No. 2011-C-2566.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Gulf South Shrimp, Inc. et ah; Industrial Development Company, LLC; Source Business; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 149864; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0531.

Granted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph MARINO.
    No. 2011-K-2218.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 497-782; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0224.

Granted.


text:
    In re Appeal of Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NOS. 11-PDB-042, 11-PDB-043.
    No. 2011-OB-2675.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Lanning, Brian M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Nos. ll-PDB-042, ll-PDB-043 Office of the Disciplinary Board, Nos. ll-PDB-042, ll-PDB-043.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-051.
    No. 2011-OB-2687.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Savoie, Mark A.; — Other; Applying For Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of the Disciplinary Board, No. ll-PDB-051.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decision of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 11-PDB-059.
    No. 2011-OB-2698.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Easterling, Sue Ann; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. ll-PDB-059.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of the Decisions of the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NOS. 11-PDB-081, 11-PDB-082, and 11-PDB-0083.
    No. 2011-OB-2834.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Little, Michael S.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of the Decisions of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, Nos. 11-PDB-081, 11-PDB-082, 11-PDB-083.

Leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In re Appeal of Decision of the DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL NO. 2011-ADMIN-561.
    No. 2012-OB-0107.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Reed, Frederick; — Plaintiff; Applying For Applying for Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Counsel No. 2011-AD-MIN-561 Office of Disciplinary Counsel, No. 201 l-ADMIN-561.

Denied. Moot. Office of Disciplinary Counsel is conducting a disciplinary investigation.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Tirrell WELLS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0547.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Wells, Tirrell; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 96-968; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 09-WR-69, 10-KH-815,10-KH-936.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ricky BRUCE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0661.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Bruce, Ricky; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 430905; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2001.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Percy M. TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0691.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Taylor, Percy M.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 88-4180; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-96.

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. Ashley POSEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0697.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Posey, Ashley; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 19709; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 2374.

Denied. To the extent that relator seeks a cost estimate of documents available to her under the Public Records Law, she must first address her request to the records’ custodians. R.S. 44:31; State ex rel. Shelton v. State, 00-1901 (La.9/14/01), 796 So.2d 672; State ex rel. McKnight v. State, 98-2258 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/3/98), 742 So.2d 894.

WEIMER and CLARK, JJ„ would deny.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John G. COUSIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0698.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Cousin, John G.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 10-WCR-409; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2345.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ryan DOZIER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0702.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Dozier, Ryan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 316-704; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0239.

Denied. State ex rel. Bernard, v. Cr. D.C., 94-2247, p. 1 (La.4/28/95), 653 So.2d 1174, 1175; State ex rel. Fleury v. State, 93-2898 (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 488.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jason MACON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0708.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Macon, Jason; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 285754; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46420-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Cecil POUNCEY III v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0709.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Pouncey III, Cecil; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 439232; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1129.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James CHARGOIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0725.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Chargois, James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10-CR-771; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2344.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent Mark CASTILLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0736.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Castillo, Vincent Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 536-358, 538-981, 538-982; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-913.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Domingo VILLERREAL a/k/a Domingo Villarreal v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0756.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Villarreal, Domingo; Villerreal a/k/a, Domingo; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 111307; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1869.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. David A. LEE v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0757.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Lee, David A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 405-129; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0263.

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


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0794.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Johnson, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 11-WCR-006; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011-CW-0266.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Todd BENN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0824.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Benn, Todd; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 94-CR-2474; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-67.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ian J. JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0871.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Jackson, Ian J.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, Ruston City-Court, No. T-41634; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,223-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 924(2); State v. Smith, 96-1798 (La.10/21/97), 700 So.2d 493.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Marvin JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0892.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Johnson, Marvin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 02-0494; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-1107.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Bob THIBODEAUX v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0893.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Thibodeaux, Bob; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 81-109,712, 99-152,238, 2011-184,667.

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

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Randy R. CARSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0894.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Carson, Randy R.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 433690; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 1522.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Eddie NORTHCUTT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-0910.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Northcutt, Eddie; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR-0764-2005; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-01266.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronald A. BELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Bell, Ronald A.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/o Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 86095; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH10-01212.

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:
    STATE ex rel. Vincent Mark CASTILLO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2011-KH-1448.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Castillo, Vincent Mark; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 536-358, 538-981, 538-982; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-KH-571.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Sadat EL-AMIN.
    No. 2011-K-1532.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re El-Amin, Sadat; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 09 CR1 101854; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0030.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn YOUNG.
    No. 2011-KO-1961.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Young, Glenn; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 3, No. 259,554; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,422-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Travis BOURDA.
    No. 2011-K-2122.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Bourda, Travis; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. CR125729; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 10-1553.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Troy W. VOLLENTINE.
    No. 2011-K-2151.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Vollentine, Troy W.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 479166; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0353.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lennis A. GEORGE.
    No. 2011-KO-2160.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re George, Lennis A.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 490-269; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-1736.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rodney A. HINGLE.
    No. 2011-KO-2187.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Hingle, Rodney A.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 489283; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0325.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell WILLIAMS.
    No. 2011-KO-2200.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Williams, Darrell; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 08-07-0247; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0324.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Edgar L. OLIVIERI.
    No. 2011-K-2227.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 09-5166; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-KA-1064.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Ian Paul KNIGHT.
    No. 2011-K-2240.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Knight, Ian Paul; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 483097, 483098; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KA 0366.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Craig SMITH.
    No. 2011-KO-2270.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Smith, Craig; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 471-368; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0058.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Justin Terrell ATKINS.
    No. 2011-KO-2287.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Atkins, Justin Terrell; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 09-F0129; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,613-KA.

Denied.


text:
    Kenneth CORKERN v. HAMMOND MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE SERVICE BOARD and the City of Hammond.
    No. 2011-CC-2569.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Corkern, Kenneth; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2010-4144; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0582.

Denied.


text:
    CARROLLTON PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH v. The PRESBYTERY OF SOUTH LOUISIANA OF the PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (USA).
    No. 2011-C-2590.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Presbytery of South Louisiana;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 565482; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0205.

Denied.


text:
    Clarence M. LELAND, et ux. v. LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2011-C-2714.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Lafayette Insurance Company;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2007-5513; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11^475.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Anita STEWART and Craig Stewart v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, INC.
    No. 2011-C-2721.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Stewart, Anita et al.; Stewart, Craig; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 564713; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0505.

Denied.


text:
    In the Matter of Earl Turner CARR.
    No. 2011-C-2724.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Carr Jr., Earl Turner; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 585550; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1851.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Charita JYNES.
    No. 2011-KK-2726.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Jynes, Charita; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 508-013; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1424.

Denied.


text:
    Joanell M. DARNELL, M.D., Allen Staton and Joanell M. Darnell, M.D., APMC v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Louisiana & Zola B. Trascher.
    No. 2011-CC-2727.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Darnell M.D., Joanell M. et al.; Joanell M. Darnell M.D. APMC; Staton, Allen; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 614-556; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-C-945.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Letitia Nell BELLA. Estate of Letitia Nell Bella v. Kathleen Tassara.
    No. 2011-C-2728.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Tassara, Kathleen; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 112-326, 111-304; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2011-CA-0092, 2011-CA-0093.

Denied.


text:
    Amanda RELLE v. Charles J. MAYFIELD, U.S. Agencies Casualty Insurance Company and United Services Automobile Association (USAA).
    No. 2011-C-2742.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Relie, Amanda; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 476,060; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0727.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jody H. TOURVILLE.
    No. 2011-KK-2744.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Tourville, Jody H.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vernon, 30th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 80222A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 11-01231.

Denied.


text:
    Karen Granger WILLIAMS and Larry D. Williams, Sr. v. Joseph and Cindy GALOFARO and Farm Bureau Insurance Companies.
    No. 2011-C-2745.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Williams Sr., Larry D.; Williams, Karen Granger et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2008-0003886; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0487.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Nancy Davis JUDSON, Secretary/Treasurer Hall’s Mortuary, Inc., Plaintiff v. Hall DAVIS, IV, President, Hall’s Mortuary, Inc., Defendant.
    No. 2011-C-2747.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Nancy Davis Judson, Plaintiff Secretary/Treasurer Hall’s Mortuary, Inc.;— Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 32,738; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0623.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Zaraina THOMAS.
    No. 2011-C-2751.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Thomas, Zaraina; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 497-823; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1371.

Denied.


text:
    Jonathon Spencer CHUMLEY and Shawna Woods Chumley v. David L. WHITE.
    No. 2011-C-2741.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re White, David L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 536,024; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,479-CW, 46,707-CA.

Denied.


text:
    BG REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. and HAOBIGP, LLC as General Partner of Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership v. RHINO SYSTEMS OF CANADA, INC., Grand Point Industries, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company and Summit Consulting, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company, Inc. BG Real Estate Services, Inc. and HAO-BIGP, LLC as General Partner of Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership v. Rhino Systems of Texas, Inc., Grand Point Industries, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company, Inc.
    No. 2011-C-2761.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re BG Real Estate Services Inc. et al.; Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership; HAOBIGP L.L.C.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 569-233, 578-518; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. ll-CA-163, ll-CA-164.

Denied.


text:
    Linette M. CURTIS v. MORGAN KEEGAN & COMPANY, INC., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-2762.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Atchley, J. Ronald; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 04-9353; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1209.

Denied.

KNOLL and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Kim LACOMBE and Brent Lacombe v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Hollingsworth Richards, L.L.C.
    No. 2011-C-2769.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Lacombe, Brent; Lacombe, Kim et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 39,454; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0173.

Denied.


text:
    Mary Elizabeth Embry McINTYRE v. Diane Dickhaus SUSSMAN, Wife of and David C. Sussman, Home Spec, Inc., George V. Swain, Wilkinson & Jeansonne, LLC d/b/a French Quarter Realty, and Brett Massony.
    No. 2011-C-2777.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re McIntyre, Mary Elizabeth Em-bry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2006-12864; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-1281.

Denied.


text:
    Lenai BOYE v. DAIQUIRIS & CREAMS NO. 3, INC.
    No. 2011-C-2778.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Colony Insurance Company; Daiquiris & Creams No. 3 Inc. et al.; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 672-046; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-CA-118.

Denied.


text:
    Tim TATUM and Richard G. Hilliard, Jr. v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Roman Williams, Karl Gramm, and Jeanne Lawrence.
    No. 2011-C-2783.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Hilliard Jr., Richard G.; Tatum, Tim et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 658-300; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-1053.

Denied.


text:
    Joseph ALFONSO, IV v. STATE of Louisiana, et al.
    No. 2011-CC-2784.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re State of Louisiana et al.; State of Louisiana Through the Military Department; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 108-105, 108-277; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-llll.

Denied.

VICTORY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.


text:
    LOUISIANA-I GAMING v. Anthony ROGERS.
    No. 2011-C-2789.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Rogers, Anthony; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 7, No. 09-07291; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-1050.

Denied.


text:
    Mary Elizabeth Embry McINTYRE v. Diane Dickhaus SUSSMAN, Wife of and David C. Sussman, Home Spec, Inc., George V. Swain, Wilkinson & Jeansonne, LLC d/b/a French Quarter Realty, and Brett Massony.
    No. 2011-C-2791.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Home Spec, Inc.; Swain, George V.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2006-12864; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-1281.

Denied.


text:
    WAGNER WORLD, L.L.C. and Scott G. Wolfe, Sr. v. ABERTA, INC., FHH Properties, L.L.C. and Fatmah Hamdan.
    No. 2011-CC-2797.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Wagner World L.L.C. et al.; Wolfe Sr., Scott G.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 700-676; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. ll-C-911.

Denied.


text:
    CENTERLINE, INC. and Edward C. St. Louis v. SARPY PROPERTIES, LLC and A. Lester Sarpy.
    No. 2011-C-2798.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Centerlink, Inc. et al.; St. Louis, Edward C.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 591-685; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-1023.

Denied.


text:
    Richard E. HUNT v. Issis ARIAS-ELWIN.
    No. 2011-CC-2809.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re Arias-Elwin, Issis; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, Nos. 2006-3613, 2010-3951; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-1382.

Denied. Moot.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of J.A.H.
    No. 2012-CJ-0224.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Feb. 17, 2012.
   In re H., M.; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Juvenile Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, No. JU 11425; to the

Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CJ 1559.

Denied,


author:
ROLAND L. BELSOME, Judge.
      /sJ Roland L. Belsome /s/ James F. McKay, III /s/ Justices, Supreme Court of Louisiana MURRAY, J.,

text:
    Marcia WIDDER v. LOUISIANA CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION d/b/a Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan.
    No. 2011-CA-0196.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Aug. 10, 2011.
    Dissenting Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 21, 2011.

      Soren E. Gisleson, Joseph E. Cain, Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
    René S. Paysse, Jr., Thomas P. Anzel-mo, Jr., Johnson Johnson Barrios ⅛ Ya-coubian, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.
    (Court composed of Judge PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge JAMES F. McKAY, III, Judge ROLAND L. BELSOME).
   ROLAND L. BELSOME, Judge.

11 This appeal is taken from the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (LCPIC) and denying coverage for Marcia Widder’s claims.

Ms. Widder owns property insured by a LCPIC homeowner’s policy. In 2009, she made an insurance claim with LCPIC for damages caused by inorganic lead. U.S. Forensics, LLC, on behalf of LCPIC, conducted an inspection of the residence and found excessive levels of lead in the kitchen, living room, master bedroom, and attic. The report surmised that due to the level of inorganic lead in the attic, the dust had migrated into the walls. It was also determined that all of the contents of the home were contaminated. Ms. Widder and her children had to move from the home due to the dangerous level of lead contamination. Despite this finding, LCPIC denied her claim for damages.

After the denial, Ms. Widder filed suit alleging that by denying coverage LCPIC was in breach of contract and acting in bad faith for violating terms of the policy. LCPIC filed a motion for summary judgment stating that there was no direct physical loss or triggering event that created coverage and further, even if there were, the defective material exclusion, latent defect exclusion, and pollution JLexclusion all preclude coverage. At the hearing for the motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that the residence did not sustain a direct physical loss as is required to trigger coverage under the policy and further found that the exclusion of faulty materials applies to defective materials used in repair, construction, renovation, remodeling of part or all of any property whether on and off the residence premises. Based on those grounds, the trial court granted the summary judgment. This appeal followed.

Ms. Widder raises two assignments of error on appeal; 1) the district court erred by finding that the lead-based paint which originated in part from outside the property did not qualify as “direct physical loss” to trigger coverage; and 2) the district court erred by finding that the lead-based paint, which originated in part from outside the property was excluded from coverage under the homeowner’s policy’s defective material exclusion.

Appellate courts review the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181, p. 7 (La.2/29/00), 755 So.2d 226, 230. A summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B). Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent’s favor. Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507, p. 2 (La.12/08/00), 775 So.2d 1049, 1050.

Direct Physical Loss

[sIn the trial court’s reasoning for finding in favor of LCPIC, it relied on the policy language stating that “[w]e insure against risk of direct physical loss to property .... ” Agreeing with LCPIC, the trial court determined that since the home was still intact, no direct physical loss had occurred therefore, no coverage under the policy. However, in reviewing the policy, the term “direct physical loss” is not defined.

A summary judgment declaring a lack of coverage under an insurance policy may not be rendered unless no reasonable interpretation of the policy, when applied to the undisputed material facts shown by the evidence supporting the motion, exists under which coverage could be afforded. Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 93-1480 (La.4/11/94), 634 So.2d 1180. An insurance policy is a conventional obligation that constitutes the law between the insured and the insurer, and the agreement governs the nature of their relationship. See La. C.C. art. 1983. Moreover, an insurance policy is a contract, which must be construed employing the general rules of interpretation of contracts. Reynolds, 634 So.2d at 1183; La. C.C. arts. 2045-2057. Courts are not at liberty to alter the terms of insurance policies that are unambiguous. Edwards v. Daugherty, 2003-2103 (La.10/1/04), 883 So.2d 932. However, if any doubt or ambiguity exists as to the meaning of a provision in an insurance policy, it must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer. See La. C.C. art. 2056.

The record is clear that Ms. Wid-der’s home is contaminated with inorganic lead which makes it uninhabitable until it has been gutted and remediated. For the purpose of determining direct physical loss, this type of loss is similar to the type of loss experienced from Chinese drywall. The issue of what constitutes a direct physical loss was recently addressed in connection with Chinese drywall 1 litigation. In In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, 759 F.Supp.2d 822 (E.D.La.2010), the court found that the presence of Chinese drywall, from which gaseous fumes were released, did in fact constitute a direct physical loss. The court stated that when a home has been rendered unusable or uninhabitable, physical damage is not necessary. Id. (quoting TRAVCO Insurance Co. v. Ward, 715 F.Supp.2d 699 (E.D.Va. 2010)). In this case, we find the intrusion of the lead to be a direct physical loss that has rendered the home unusable and uninhabitable. See, Ross v. C. Adams Construction & Design, 10-852 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/14/11), 70 So.3d 949 (Although the Chinese drywall is physically intact and functional, its inherent qualities require it to be taken down and replaced. Therefore, there was a direct physical loss.).

Exclusions

In her second assignment of error Ms. Widder contends that the trial court erroneously found that the homeowner’s policy’s defective material exclusion applied. The “Perils Insured Against” section of the policy does not specify perils that are covered, but instead lists the perils that are not insured. This policy is characterized as an “all risk” policy, one where all risks are covered unless clearly and specifically excluded. See Morgan v. Auto Club Family Ins. Co., 2004-1562, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/05), 899 So.2d 135, 137; Dawson Farms, L.L.C. v. Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 34, 801, p. 3 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/1/01), 794 So.2d 949, 950. An insurer moving for summary judgment on an exclusionary provision within a policy bears the burden of proving the applicability of that exclusion. See Blackburn v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 2000-2668, p. 6 (La.4/3/01), 784 So.2d 637, 641 (Louisiana Supreme Court placed burden on insurer to show that | exclusion applied when reviewing denial of insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the exclusion).

Even though LCPIC cites to three exclusionary provisions that it claims would defeat coverage, the trial court only made a finding as to the faulty, inadequate or defective material exclusion. Thus, that is the only ruling that is properly before this Court for review.

Ms. Widder’s homeowner’s policy has the following provision under Section 1-Exclusions:

B. We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered.
3. Faulty, inadequate or defective:
c. Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or
d. Maintenance;
of part or all of any property whether on or off the “residence premises”.

To be successful on a motion for summary judgment on the issue of coverage, LCPIC must prove that the damage complained of, the lead contamination, falls squarely into this exclusion. According to LCPIC’s engineer’s report, wipe samples taken from the attic indicate that inorganic lead from the environment had infiltrated the home. The report further states that the sources of the inorganic lead inside the home were man-made and include lead in soils, dust from the environment and paint containing inorganic lead.

In order for this particular exclusion to defeat coverage on summary judgment, LCPIC has the burden of establishing that all of the lead dust in the | RWidder home came from faulty, inadequate or defective materials used for repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, or maintenance. That burden was not met and therefore the trial court erred when it determined there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the coverage based on this one exclusion. LCPIC’s engineer acknowledged that there was more than one source for the lead dust, but did not identify the specific origins of each source as construction material.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment on the issue of coverage is reversed. This matter is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

11 ORDER

Rehearing denied.

MURRAY, J., dissents from the denial of rehearing and assigns reasons.

/sJ Roland L. Belsome

/s/ James F. McKay, III /s/ Justices, Supreme Court of Louisiana

MURRAY, J.,

dissents from the denial of rehearing and assigns reasons.

hi would grant the LCPIC’s application for rehearing for the following reasons. In its motion for summary judgment, LCPIC argued its policy did not provide coverage because the plaintiff had not sustained a direct physical loss, and alternatively because coverage for any such loss was excluded by three separate policy provisions: (1) the “latent defect” exclusion; (2) the “defective materials” exclusions and (3) the “pollution” exclusion. The trial court granted summary judgment on two grounds; that the plaintiff had not sustained a direct physical loss, and that even if such a loss had been sustained, coverage would have been defeated by the defective materials exclusion. This Court reversed, finding that the trial court had erred in both those determinations. We expressly declined to consider the applicability of either of the other two exclusions, however, noting that those issues were not properly before us because the trial court had not ruled on either.

Applying for rehearing, LCPIC contends that we erred by failing to consider the applicability of the other two exclusions upon which its motion for summary judgment was based. I agree. An appellate court reviews the granting of summary judgment de novo, using- the same criteria as the trial court and considering all the evidence that was properly presented to the trial court, both in support of and in ^opposition to the motion. In the instant case the trial court was not obliged to rule on the applicability of the, other two policy exclusions because a single exclusion was sufficient to defeat coverage; hence, once the trial court found that the defective materials exclusion applied, it did not need to go any farther. Before reversing the trial court’s granting of summary judgment, however, this Court was obligated to consider all the evidence before the trial court, including the entire policy, to determine whether or not the policy excludes coverage as a matter of law. Indeed, our conclusion that the defective materials exclusion is inapplicable would be irrelevant were we to find that one of the other two policy provisions cited by LCPIC excludes coverage under the undisputed facts demonstrated by the evidence.

Accordingly, I believe that this Court erred by concluding that the applicability of the defective materials exclusion was “the only ruling ... properly before this Court for review.” I would grant rehearing to consider the applicability of the other two exclusions relied upon by LCPIC in making its motion. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing.


text:
    Louis BOYD v. Times PICAYUNE, St. Charles Herald, L’Observor, Major Zinna.
    No. 11-CA-119.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 15, 2011.

      Louis Boyd, Jr., IPP, Killona, LA, Plain-tiffiAppellant.
    Loretta G. Mince, Alysson L. Mills, Attorneys at Law, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.
    Panel composed of CLARENCE E. McMANUS, FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, and MARC E. JOHNSON, Judges.
   FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, Judge.

12This is an appeal by Louis Boyd, an unrepresented plaintiff-appellant, from a judgment dismissing without prejudice his defamation suit against the Times Picayune and Matt Scallan, and Wick Communications and Robin Shannon, defendants-appellees, on grounds that Mr. Boyd failed to request service within 90 days of filing suit as required by La.C.C.P. art. 1201(C). For the following reasons the judgment is affirmed.

Procedural History

Mr. Boyd, an unrepresented inmate, filed his petition on November 16, 2009. Named defendants were the Times Picayune, St. Charles Herald, L’Observor and Major Zinna. Mr. Boyd’s basic allegations were that Major Zinna, along with the newspapers’ editors, concocted a defamatory story that property had been discovered at 786 East Easy Street, which was believed to be stolen and/or [.^acquired through drug transactions. No requests for service were made at that time.

On November 80, 2009, Mr. Boyd filed an application for leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, which was granted by the trial court. On December 16, 2009, he filed a motion for “notice of fixings” and a request to be appointed amicus curiae to assist him with the suit. He asked for the appointment stating that because he was incarcerated, he was limited in movement, resources, and available information. The trial court granted the request for notice. It denied the request for court-appointed assistance on grounds that pro bono legal assistance was not available in a civil litigation.

Times Picayune and Matt Scallan, and Wick Communications and Robin Shannon filed respective motions for involuntary dismissal under La.C.C.P. art. 1672(C). That article provides that a suit shall be dismissed without prejudice for failure to request service within 90 days of filing suit as provided in La.C.C.P. art. 1201(C), unless good cause is shown why service could not be timely requested.

The matter was set for a hearing on November 29, 2010, and Mr. Boyd was properly served with the motions and notice of the hearing. Mr. Boyd did not file an opposition to the motion. On appeal, he asserts that he planned to attend the hearing instead.

Due to his incarceration, however, Mr. Boyd did not appear at the hearing. The trial judge suggested that because of Mr. Boyd’s absence, he preferred not to allow the appellees to argue, but rather suggested that they submit the issue on briefs. Appellees agreed and the matter was taken under advisement. On |4Pecember 9, 2010, judgment was rendered dismissing the suit without prejudice. This appeal followed.

Analysis

Citation and service are essential in most civil actions; without them, all proceedings are absolutely null. La. C.C.P. art. 1201(A). In particular, La.C.C.P. art. 1201(C) explicitly requires that “service of the citation shall be requested on all named defendants within ninety days of commencement of the action.”

La.C.C.P. art. 1672(C) pertinently provides:

A judgment dismissing an action without prejudice shall be rendered as to a person named as a defendant for whom service has not been requested within the time prescribed by Article 1201(C)
... upon the sustaining of a declinatory exception filed by such defendant, or upon contradictory motion of any other party, unless good cause is shown why service could not be requested, in which case the court may order that service be effected within a specified time.

Louisiana courts strictly construe the good cause requirement of La.C.C.P. art. 1672(C). Barnett v. Louisiana State University Medical Center — Shreveport, 02-2576, p. 1 (La.2/7/03), 841 So.2d 725, 726. Consequently, Mr. Boyd is strictly held to the obligation of serving the defendants.

Mr. Boyd raises three assignments of error in his appeal. First, he contends that it was error for the trial judge to proceed with the hearing on the motion to dismiss without his presence; and second, he asserts that had he been present he could have shown good cause for his failure to timely request service. His third assignment urges that his claim has not prescribed. As to this latter argument, because the judgment does not address the prescription question, this assignment is moot and will not be addressed further.

The first issue concerns Mr. Boyd’s right to be present at the hearing. This Court discussed this issue in Falcon v. Falcon, 07-491, p. 3 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/07), 975 So.2d 40, 42-43, writ denied, 08-0295 (La.3/28/08), 978 So.2d 311. There we stated that incarcerated persons who are parties to civil lawsuits have no right to be present during those proceedings. We further noted that if such persons wish to be present at such proceedings, the proper procedure is to request the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. Here, Mr. Boyd did not avail himself of this remedy, and the trial judge did not err in holding the hearing without him being present.

The second issue concerns Mr. Boyd’s argument that because of his incarceration he was unable to ascertain the addresses of the defendants, and thus he had good cause for not requesting service within 90 days of filing of the suit. Since Mr. Boyd did not file an opposition to the motion, this argument was not presented below. Rather, the trial judge, in ascertaining whether there was a showing of good cause, reviewed the record. He noted in his reasons for judgment that Mr. Boyd, although not an attorney, nonetheless had known to file the original suit with the clerk of court’s office in an appropriate parish, had filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and had filed an amended petition. We note that he had also filed a motion to be informed of all proceedings and a request for appointment of amicus curiae to assist him with his claim. The trial judge concluded that although Mr. Boyd is not an attorney, “this Court cannot deem plaintiffs lack of knowledge to be good cause” for failing to timely request service.

Thus, the trial court found no showing of “good cause.” The manifest error standard of review applies to the trial court’s dismissal of a suit for failure of the plaintiff to request timely service under the above articles. Futrell v. Cook, 00-2531, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/19/01), 805 So.2d 325, 327; Pylant v. Jefferson Parish, State of Louisiana Dept. of Health and Hosp., 05-148, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/28/05), 907 So.2d 807, 810, writ denied, 05-1992 (La.3/17/06), 925 So.2d 537. We see no manifest error in the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for dismissal.

Mr. Boyd argues that he did not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss because he intended to appear at the hearing. We agree with the trial judge. In Cutler v. McGee, 09-1290, p. 12 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/10), 38 So.3d 481, 490, writ denied, 10-1879 (La.11/1910), 49 So.3d 393, the court stated that notwithstanding that a layman representing himself is not to be held to the same standards as an attorney, he nonetheless assumes responsibility for his own lack of knowledge of both procedural and substantive law.

We also note that when Mr. Boyd filed his amended petition, he appended to it copies of the articles which he deemed defamatory. Clearly, Mr. Boyd had access to the newspapers themselves. He also states in brief that he enlisted the aid of family members to ascertain the addresses but to no avail. Thus, Mr. Boyd had outside as well as inside resources to aid him in determining addresses. Compare: Thomas v. State, ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Development, 07-0187, pp. 2, 4-5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/19/08), 2008 WL 2484717, writ denied, 08-1636 (La.10/24/08) (unpublished), 992 So.2d 1035 (The inmate had been in lockdown and had no access to the law library.). Nevertheless, even if unrepresented litigants might be afforded latitude in some circumstances, the instant case is not among them. Although Mr. Boyd is appearing in proper person, his filings in the court demonstrate that he is not an inexperienced litigator. Compare: Davis v. Huey P. Long Regional Medical Center, 02-806, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/5/03), 841 So.2d 7, 11 (“While we sympathize with Mr. Davis, and recognize that his lack of education, his impecuniousness, and to some extent his incarceration, puts him at a disadvantage in court, there is a limit to the degree of indulgence we can give him. We cannot rewrite the law to give him a right he does not presently have.”).

17Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED

      . Several months later, on August 13, 2010, Mr. Boyd filed an amended petition which simply recited the original allegations but asked for judgment against additional parties: Detective Erik Brass, River Parishes Bureau, Matt Scallan, Robin Shannon, the St. Charles Herald Guide (and its unknown staff writer), and the St. Charles Police Department, although they were not actually named as defendants. Service of the amended petition was requested on, inter alia, Matt Scallan of the River Parishes Bureau of the Times Picayune, and L’Observateur and Robin Shannon, associated with Wick Communications Co.