Lanell E. Darouse v. P.J.'s Coffee of New Orleans, LLC and New Orleans Roast, LLC
Opinion
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #048
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 24th day of October, 2025 are as follows:
BY Hughes, J.:
2025-CC-00078 LANELL E. DAROUSE VS. P.J.'S COFFEE OF NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND NEW ORLEANS ROAST, LLC (Parish of Orleans Civil)
AFFIRMED. SEE OPINION.
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-CC-00078
LANELL E. DAROUSE
VERSUS
P.J.’S COFFEE OF NEW ORLEANS, LLC AND NEW ORLEANS ROAST, LLC
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans Civil
HUGHES, J.
In this case, we review the district court’s denial of the defendants’ exception
of insufficiency of service of process and motion for involuntary dismissal, on their
contention that the plaintiff did not properly request service because he did not
timely remit to the sheriff’s office all of the service fees. At issue is the appropriate
meaning to be given to the use of the word “requested” in La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C),
requiring that “[s]ervice of the citation shall be requested on all named defendants
within ninety days….”
Herein, the defendants assert that both a request and full payment of all fees
for service must be submitted within the ninety day period to satisfy La. C.C.P. art.
1201(C), while the plaintiff contends that a request for service submitted to the clerk
of court, alone, is sufficient to satisfy Article 1201. Both the district court and the
appellate court held that Article 1201(C) does not require payment of all service-
related fees during the ninety days allotted for the timely “request” for service. See
DaRouse v. P.J.’s Coffee of New Orleans, LLC, 24-0689 (La. App. 4 Cir.
12/17/24), 414 So.3d 602. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Appellate court rulings on this issue have been conflicting. This is the first
instance in which this court has had the opportunity to address the precise issue
presented, after full briefing and oral argument, having previously ruled according
to the various factual scenarios of similar matters in summarily-issued writ actions;
therefore, these prior writ actions are not authoritative.
The difficulty the courts have had, in applying Paragraph (C) of La. C.C.P.
art. 1201, appears to have arisen from a perceived need to take into account laws
authorizing court officials to demand payment, and/or an advance deposit for the
payment, of court costs and fees (including those for service of citation), in
conjunction with the application of the term “request” in Article 1201 (the generally
accepted meaning of which is, as stated in https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/request, to ask for something). Some appellate court
decisions have held that a party need only “ask” for service within the ninety day
period,1 while other appellate decisions have held that there is no proper request
unless it is accompanied by the requisite fees for service.2
In the instant case, the plaintiff asked for service on the defendants in his
petition and paid all fees required of him by the clerk of court on the date of filing,
totaling $1,297.50; but afterward, additional fees were billed by the sheriff’s office
for service, via an email that was not clearly identified as such.3 Consequently,
1 Draten v. Univ. Med. Ctr. Mgmt. Corp., 20-0519 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/21/21), 325 So.3d 441, writs denied, 21-01276, 21-01284 (La. 12/7/21), 328 So.3d 421; Walker v. GoAuto Ins. Co., 20- 0331 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/10/21), 323 So.3d 918 (holding that, when a plaintiff has asked for service of process on all defendants in his original petition, the plaintiff has timely “requested” service of citation on the defendants in compliance with La. C.C.P. art. 1201, even though the defendants are not actually served until after the ninety-day period had expired). 2 Miller v. Hirstius, 22-0740 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/15/23), 363 So.3d 532; Methvien v. Our Lady of the Lake, 20-1081 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/16/21), 318 So.3d 329; Jenkins v. Larpenter, 04-0318 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 906 So.2d 656, writ denied, 05-1078 (La. 6/17/05), 904 So.2d 711 (holding that service of citation is not considered requested until the clerk receives a request for service and payment of the required fees or an order granting pauper status). 3 The email sent by the sheriff’s office, in this case, showed a sender name of “DoNotReply@opso.us” and on the subject line stated only: “A/R Invoice – Docket.” There was also an invoice appended to the email, but the contents thereof could only be known if one were to open the attachment. No evidence was introduced at the hearing of this matter in the district court to show that this email address or subject line, alone, would have informed a recipient as to who the actual sender was or what the email pertained to. Nor was there any evidence presented
although the plaintiff filed a request for service and paid the overwhelming majority
of his filing fees along with the petition in a timely manner, an additional bill was
thereafter transmitted, amounting to $148.41, which was paid outside the ninety-day
period set forth in Article 1201(C).
There can be no serious dispute that the word “request” means to “ask” for
something and is not ambiguous. Words of a law are to be given their “common,”
or “generally prevailing,” meaning. La. C.C. art. 11; La. C.C.P. art. 5053. Further,
when language is “clear” and “free from ambiguity,” it must be “applied as written”
and “is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” La. C.C. art.
9; La. C.C.P. art. 5052.
Even if an ambiguity were to be found in the language of Article 1201(C), “it
must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the
law.” La. C.C. art. 10. The purpose of the procedural rule of requesting service of
citation on a defendant within ninety days is, as stated in Naquin v. Titan Indem.
Co., 00-1585, pp. 4-9 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So.2d 704, 708-11, to ensure “the avoidance
of stale claims.”
Procedural laws are “to be construed liberally, and with due regard for the fact
that rules of procedure implement the substantive law,” and they are not “an end in
themselves.” La. C.C.P. art. 5051. “While it is this court’s province to ‘consider the
reason and spirit of a law,’ we are ‘not free to rewrite the law to effect a purpose that
is not otherwise expressed.’ ” Naquin v. Titan Indem. Co., 00-1585 at p. 9, 779
So.2d at 710. Code of Civil Procedure Article 1201(C) unambiguously states that
service of citation is to be requested, i.e., asked for, within ninety days of the filing
of the petition; it does not say that all fees for service must also be paid during that
ninety day period.
at the district court hearing of plaintiff’s assertions that this email went to the “spam” folder, rather than to the in-box, and for this reason was overlooked.
If the Louisiana Legislature had intended that a party must ask for service of
citation and also must pay for service of citation within ninety days, it could have
easily so stated, as pointed out by the dissent in Jenkins v. Larpenter, supra, of
then-First Circuit Judge Guidry (now Justice Guidry), in pertinent part:
The statutes at issue, La. C.C.P. art. 1672(C) and La. R.S.
13:5107(D), only require dismissal of an action if good cause is not shown why service of the citation is not requested within the ninety- day time period provided in La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C). A plain reading of the statutory provisions reveals that all that is required for compliance is that service be requested. Neither statute requires actual service within ninety days of the filing of the original petition. … However, the majority holds that a request for service without the payment of costs is not a request. That conclusion is contrary to the plain reading of the statutory provisions governing this matter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lanell E. Darouse v. P.J.'s Coffee of New Orleans, LLC and New Orleans Roast, LLC (Lanell E. Darouse v. P.J.'s Coffee of New Orleans, LLC and New Orleans Roast, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.