Glory Carter Seals v. Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, City of New Orleans, and Metro Service Group, Inc.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 6, 2022
• Docket: 2022-CA-0227
• Status: Published

Opinion

GLORY CARTER SEALS * NO. 2022-CA-0227

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL LOUIS ARMSTRONG NEW * ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL FOURTH CIRCUIT AIRPORT, CITY OF NEW * ORLEANS, AND METRO STATE OF LOUISIANA SERVICE GROUP, INC. *******

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2018-12624, DIVISION “A” Honorable Ellen M Hazeur, Judge ****** Judge Roland L. Belsome ****** (Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Paula A. Brown)

Katrina R. Jackson KATRINA R. JACKSON & ASSOCIATES 4106 DeSiard Street Monroe, Louisiana 71203

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

E. Madison Barton Sara L. Braslow Kyle Paul Kirsch WANEK KIRSCH DAVIES LLC 1340 Poydras Street Suite 2000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

APPEAL DISMISSED December 6, 2022 Plaintiff, Gloria Carter Seals (“Ms. Seals”), appeals the November 30, 2021 RLB RML judgment granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant, Metro PAB Service Group, Inc. (“Metro”), dismissing the defendant with prejudice. For the

reasons explained below, this appeal is dismissed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDUARL HISTORY

On December 17, 2018, Ms. Seals filed a petition for damages against

Metro, the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, and the City of

New Orleans. The petition alleges that on December 17, 2017, Ms. Seals sustained

injuries as a result of a slip and fall on wet concrete (due to rain) as she was

leaving the baggage claim area.

On September 22, 2021, Metro filed a motion for summary judgment

asserting that Ms. Seals’ petition makes no specific allegations of liability against

Metro. The motion further maintains that Ms. Seals had insufficient evidence to

establish that Metro had any responsibility for the alleged condition which caused

her fall.

1 The matter was brought before the district court on November 19, 2021.

After considering the record and the argument of counsel, Metro’s motion for

summary judgment was granted.

Ms. Seals’ timely appeal was lodged on April 11, 2022. On June 15, 2022,

this Court issued a 30-day warning letter to Ms. Seals’ counsel advising that her

appeal brief, which was due on May 6, 2022, had not been filed. The letter further

instructed that: “Pursuant to Rule 2-12.12 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal,

the right to oral argument has been forfeited. Further, under Rule 2-8.6 of the

Uniform Rules, the above appeal shall be dismissed within 30 days of the mailing

of this notice unless appellant’s brief is filed in the meantime.”

No response was received. A second 30-day warning letter was issued to

Ms. Seals’ counsel on July 15, 2022.

On August 23, 2022, a motion for extension of time was filed on behalf of

Ms. Seals. Therein, it was stated that counsel for Ms. Seals “had a breach in its

office and communications from the Court were not properly received based on

this breach.”

This Court issued an order on August 24, 2022, granting Ms. Seals an additional

thirty days to file a brief. On September 23, 2022, Ms. Seals filed a second motion

for extension of time, again relying on the “breach in its office” as grounds for the

second extension of time. No other explanation was provided. The second motion

for extension of time was denied.

DISCUSSION

Uniform Rules – Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-8.6 provides, in pertinent part, for

the abandonment of civil appeals as follows:

2 For civil appeals, if an appellant does not file a brief within the time prescribed by Rule 2–12.7 or any extension thereof granted by the court as provided by Rule 2–12.8, a notice shall be transmitted by the clerk to counsel for the appellant, or to the appellant if not represented, that the appeal shall be dismissed 30 days thereafter unless a brief is filed in the meantime. If an appellant does not file a brief within 30 days after such notice is transmitted, the appeal shall be dismissed as abandoned.

The record in the present case clearly shows that Ms. Seals, through her

counsel of record, was informed about the failure to timely file an appellant brief

and was granted multiple opportunities to comply. Based on the foregoing, we

conclude that Ms. Seals has abandoned her appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is deemed abandoned pursuant to

Uniform Rules – Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-8.6. Accordingly, Ms. Seals’ appeal of

the November 30, 2021 judgment is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED