Guzman v. Crispy Catfish & Seafood, Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Guzman v. Crispy Catfish & Seafood, Inc.

667 So. 2d 1037, 1996 La. LEXIS 511

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided February 16, 1996·No. No. 95-CC-3031·Published

Opinion

In re Guzman, Desiree; — Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 95CA-2161; Parish of St. Bernard, 84th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 76-165.

Granted. Relator Desiree Guzman’s application is granted. Lower courts’ rulings are reversed. Relator’s motion to strike the jury is granted. Answer to discovery is not a pleading directed to a triable issue. See La.C.C.P. art. 1733(C) and Zeller v. Jording, 624 So.2d 432, 433 (LaApp. 4th Cir.1993).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Guzman, Desiree; — Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 95CA-2161; Parish of St. Bernard, 84th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 76-165.

Granted. Relator Desiree Guzman’s application is granted. Lower courts’ rulings are reversed. Relator’s motion to strike the jury is granted. Answer to discovery is not a pleading directed to a triable issue. See La.C.C.P. art. 1733(C) and Zeller v. Jording, 624 So.2d 432, 433 (LaApp. 4th Cir.1993).

Guzman v. Crispy Catfish & Seafood, Inc., 667 So. 2d 1037, 1996 La. LEXIS 511 (La. 1996).

Pincite

667 So. 2d 1037 (Guzman v. Crispy Catfish & Seafood, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related