Roderick Vaughn Dominick Jr. v. Grambling State University by and through the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 24, 2020
• Docket: 2019CA1402
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2019 CA 1402

RODERICK VAUGHN DOMINICK JR.

VERSUS

r k(GRAMBLING STATE UNIVERSITY BY AND THROUGH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT.• JUL 2 4 2120

ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER C674310, SECTION 22, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA

HONORABLE TIMOTHY KELLY, JUDGE

Tonya S. Johnson Counsel for Plaintiff A - ppellant New Orleans, Louisiana Roderick Vaughn Dominick Jr.

Jeff Landry Counsel for Defendant -Appellee Attorney General State of Louisiana, through the Board William David Coffey of Supervisors for the University of Assistant Attorney General Louisiana System New Orleans, Louisiana Gregory S. Barkley Assistant Attorney General Shreveport, Louisiana

BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

Disposition: AFFIRMED. CHUTZ, J.

Plaintiff-appellant, Roderick Vaughn Dominick Jr., appeals the trial court' s

judgment, sustaining a declinatory exception of insufficiency of service of process

and dismissing without prejudice his cause of action against defendant -appellee,

State of Louisiana, through the Board of Supervisors for the University of

Louisiana System ( the Board). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to the allegations of his petition, Dominick was enrolled as a

freshman at Grambling State University ( Grambling), living on campus in one of

the dormitories. On the night of September 21, 2017, a person ran into his room to

rob him. A struggle ensued during which Dominick was shot in the arm. Averring

he sustained injuries to his left humerus, nerve damage, and the loss of full use of

and permanent damage to his arm, Dominick claimed that Grambling did not offer

him any assistance or support.

On September 21, 2018, Dominick filed a petition for damages, naming the

Board as a defendant, averring that it was " authorized and mandated to direct,

control, supervise[,] and manage Grambling." He alleged that the Board was liable

to him for damages as a result of his injuries and for Grambling' s failures to take

appropriate steps to mitigate his losses and to provide adequate security on

campus.

On November 5, 2018, the Louisiana Attorney General filed a request for

10 -day notice of setting and of judgment on behalf of the Board. Thereafter, on

January 18, 2019, the Board subsequently filed a declinatory exception raising the

objection of insufficiency of service of process.

After a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment on April 15, 2019,

sustaining the exception of insufficiency of service of process and dismissing Dominick' s cause of action without prejudice. After the trial court denied

Dominick' s motion for new trial, this appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

With few exceptions, citation and service are essential in all civil actions.

La. C. C. P. art. 1201A. Proper citation is the cornerstone of these actions.

Tranchant v. State, 2008- 0978 ( La. 1/ 21/ 09), 5 So. 3d 832, 834.

Pursuant to La. R.S. 13: 51071)( 1), "[ i] n all suits in which the state, a state

agency, or political subdivision ... is named as a party, service of citation shall be

requested within ninety days of the commencement of the action." If service is not

requested within the time period provided, the action " shall be dismissed without

prejudice" after a contradictory motion as provided in La. C. C.P. art. 1672C. La.

R.S. 13: 51071)( 2). Article 1672C provides that such dismissal shall be rendered

unless good cause is shown why service could not be requested." Tranchant, 5

So. 3d at 834.

The requirement of La. R.S. 13: 5107D that service on state defendants shall

be requested within ninety days of the commencement of the action or be subject

to dismissal is not a punitive concept. The ninety -day request of service rule

balances the policies of seeing that every litigant has his day in court with the

policy that lawsuits, once filed, should be prosecuted without unreasonable delay.

In fact, it appears that by adopting the ninety -day request of service rule, the

legislature indicated its intent to shift the balance in favor of moving cases, once

filed, more quickly through the judicial system. Tranchant, 5 So. 3d at 835.

On appeal, emphasizing that he timely paid the appropriate filing fees,

Dominick asserts the trial court erred in failing to overrule the exception of

insufficient service of process because the failure to set forth an address for the

parties upon whom service is requested is not the same as failing to request service.

3 Service upon the defendant pursuant to La. R.S. 13: 51071)( 1) requires an

accurate request of service upon the proper agent. For service to be requested and

effectuated, the clerk must be provided with the correct name and address of those

persons to be served. The plain language of La. R.S. 13: 51071)( 1), without more,

requires that the clerk receive this information before it can be considered

requested." Tranchant, 5 So. 3d at 836.

In the service request of his petition, Dominick' s attorney simply stated,

Please Serve:/ Attorney General/ Board of Supervisors/ University System of

Louisiana." It is undisputed, and at the hearing Dominick conceded, that the

service instructions did not include an address for either the attorney general or the

Board. Thus, because the service instructions failed to provide the address of the

persons to be served, service cannot be considered to have been requested.

Additionally, our review of the record provides no basis for finding good

cause for why service could not be requested as permitted under Article 1672C.

This good -cause requirement is strictly construed. Barnett v. Louisiana State

Univ. Med. Cir. S - hreveport, 2002- 2576 ( La. 2/ 7/ 03), 841 So.2d 725, 726. Mere

confusion over a party' s proper service information is not a sufficient basis for

good cause. Johnson v. Univ. Med. Ctr. in Lafayette, 2007- 1683 ( La. 11/ 21/ 07),

968 So.2d 724, 725. Similarly, inadvertence in requesting service on the part of the

plaintiff' s attorney is not a sufficient basis for good cause. Norbert v. Loucks,

2001- 1229 ( La. 6/ 29/ 01), 791 So. 2d 1283, 1285.

At the hearing, Dominick' s attorney stated that she received a letter on

October 30, 2018, indicating an attorney was enrolling on behalf of Grambling and

the attorney general, and noted the November 5, 2018 request for notice that had

been filed into the record. But she conceded that a defendant' s notice of a lawsuit

C! was not tantamount to servicer and acknowledged that she failed to review the

petition to determine whether she had provided addresses for service of process

after receipt of the letter or the notice requests filed on behalf of the Board. Thus,

whether attributable to confusion or inadvertence, the failure of Dominick' s

attorney to request service by providing to the clerk the addresses of the parties to

be served as required under the provisions of La. R.S. 13: 5107D( 1) and the

jurisprudence is simply insufficient to constitute good cause. Accordingly, we find

no error in the trial court' s actions of sustaining the exception of insufficiency of

service of process and dismissing Dominick' s cause of action.

DECREE

For these reasons, the trial court' s judgment is affirmed. Appeal costs are

assessed against plaintiff-appellant, Roderick Vaughn Dominick. Jr.

AFFIRMED.

1 Rivers v. Groth Corp., 95- 2509 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 27/ 96), 680 So. 2d 762, 763 (" The law is moreover patently clear that actual knowledge cannot supplant the need for strict compliance with the requisites of proper citation.").