Dr. Carrol I. Fischer, Jr. v. Chad Rogers, Cuvee, L.L.C., Decatur Hotels, LLC and the New Orleans Board of Trade, Limited

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: October 9, 2019
• Docket: 2019-CA-0337
• Status: Published

Opinion

DR. CARROL I. FISCHER, JR. * NO. 2019-CA-0337

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

CHAD ROGERS, CUVEE, * FOURTH CIRCUIT L.L.C., DECATUR HOTELS, LLC AND THE NEW * STATE OF LOUISIANA ORLEANS BOARD OF TRADE, LIMITED *

* *******

CHASE, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS.

I join in the majority’s opinion but write separately to emphasize the split in

the Circuits. While I recognize that dismissal of a case because of abandonment is

a harsh remedy which should be employed sparingly, there is clearly a dispute

amongst the courts as to whether continuing a trial without date constitutes a step

in the prosecution of the case pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 561. See, e.g., Taylor v.

Dash Equipment & Supplies, Inc., 2018-0335, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 258

So.3d 909, 916 (unopposed motion to continue is not a step because it did not

request the court to set a new trial date; “indefinite continuance is not intended to

hasten the matter to judgment”); Bourg v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, 2012-0829, pp.

5-6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 45, 49 (“continuing the hearing on a

motion for summary judgment, without date, does not further the suit towards

judgment, and thus does not qualify as a ‘step’ to interrupt the accrual of the

abandonment period”); and Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc., 2009-0410, p. 6

(La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09), 22 So.3d 989, 994 (“[a] joint motion to continue without

date or indefinitely is not considered a step in the prosecution of a case, since by its

very nature, an indefinite continuance is not intended to hasten the matter to

judgment”).