Sandtrell Broden, Shelcia Valentine-Carter, Peggy Valentine and Jordy Valentine, Individually and on Behalf of the Decedent, Russell Alexander Versus Priority Management Group, L.L.C. and Riverlands Home Group, L.L.C. D/B/A Chateau St. James Rehab and Retirement

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 30, 2024
• Docket: 24-C-619
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

SANDTRELL BRODEN, SHELCIA NO. 24-C-619 VALENTINE-CARTER, PEGGY VALENTINE AND JORDY VALENTINE, INDIVIDUALLY FIFTH CIRCUIT AND ON BEHALF OF THE DECEDENT, RUSSELL ALEXANDER COURT OF APPEAL

VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA

PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C. AND RIVERLANDS HOME GROUP, L.L.C. D/B/A CHATEAU ST. JAMES REHAB AND RETIREMENT

December 30, 2024

Linda Wiseman First Deputy Clerk

IN RE PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC AND RIVERLANDS HOME GROUP, LLC D/B/A CHATEAU ST. JAMES REHAB AND RETIREMENT

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST JAMES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JASON VERDIGETS, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 40,834

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, John J. Molaison, Jr., and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

Defendants, Priority Management Group, LLC and Riverlands Home Group,

LLC, d/b/a Chateau St. James Rehab and Retirement, seek review of the trial

court’s denial of their motion to continue the January 14, 2025 trial date currently

set in this matter. Defendants also request relief from the trial court’s denial of

their request for an extension of pre-trial expert and discovery deadlines. For the

reasons below, we grant defendants’ writ application in part and deny it in part.

This matter involves plaintiffs’ administrative negligence and wrongful

death claims against defendants alleging that their father sustained injuries and

subsequently died due to defendants’ alleged understaffing of the skilled nursing facility where their father resided prior to his death.1 Plaintiffs also allege a

medical malpractice claim against Riverlands.2 The matter is currently set for trial

on January 14, 2025. On November 26, 2024, defendants filed a motion to

substitute new counsel to represent them at trial. Defendants contend that they

filed the motion to substitute due to their prior trial counsel’s hearing disability.

On December 2, 2024, defendants also filed a motion to continue the January 14,

2025 trial date and all associated deadlines in this matter. Defendants argued, in

part, that due to the complexity of the case, it was impossible for their new counsel

to adequately prepare for trial in less than six weeks during the holiday season.

Defendants also argued that they needed time to conduct additional discovery, take

depositions, and wanted to add an additional trial expert. On December 16, 2024,

the trial court denied defendants’ motion to continue the trial date and all pre-trial

deadlines, as well as defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings.3

“A continuance may be granted in any case if there is good ground

therefor.” La. C.C.P. art. 1601. In determining whether to grant a continuance,

the trial court must consider the particular facts in each case. Succession of

Maloney, 21-618 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/9/22), 353 So.3d 292, 298. Some factors trial

courts consider are diligence, good faith, and reasonable grounds of the party

seeking the continuance. Id. Of equal importance is the other litigant’s

corresponding right to have the case heard as soon as practicable. Id. The trial

court may also weigh the condition of the court docket, fairness to the parties and

1 Plaintiffs filed their initial Petition for Damages and Relief Under the Nursing Home Residents’ Bill of Rights in April 2022, alleging a claim for administrative negligence. Almost a year later, in February 2023, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Petition for Damages adding a claim for intentional fraud. Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Petition for Damages in July 2023 adding a medical negligence claim. 2 Defendants also claim that a dispute also exists as to whether Priority is a qualified health care provider under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act, La. R.S. 40:1231.1, et seq. 3 The trial court did allow defendants to conduct two additional depositions, to supplement their expert reports if needed to consider medical records produced after they produced their reports, and to argue motions in limine filed after the deadline. other litigants before the court, and the need for orderly and prompt administration

of justice. Id.

A trial court is vested with great discretion in granting or denying a motion

for continuance under La. C.C.P. art. 1601, and that discretion will not be disturbed

on appeal in the absence of clear abuse of discretion. Morris v. Westside Transit

Line, 02-1029 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/25/03), 841 So.2d 920, 928, writ denied, 03-852

(La. 5/16/03), 843 So.2d 1132. An abuse of discretion occurs when such discretion

is exercised in a way that deprives a litigant of his day in court. Maloney, 353

So.3d at 298.

In support of their motion to continue, defendants provided a transcript from

a trial in late September 2024 (Cambre v. Riverlands) involving the same

plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants. This transcript clearly evidences that the trial

court in that matter recognized prior defense counsel’s hearing issues and the

negative effect they had on counsel’s ability to understand and react to testimony

during the trial. In addition, prior defense counsel provided an affidavit explaining

that he had experienced hearing difficulties for years but was able to manage with

the assistance of hearing aids. However, in August 2024, he discovered that he

could not hear as well during another trial, so he secured new hearing aids. During

the September 2024 trial mentioned above, prior counsel stated that his hearing

problem seemed even worse despite his new hearing aids, and he was subsequently

advised that he would require surgery to address his hearing loss. Thus, prior

counsel’s hearing impairment does not appear to be a new and sudden condition.

Defendants contend that they commenced efforts to replace their counsel in

October 2024. They explain that they contacted a number of attorneys, including

one attorney who agreed to handle the case, if the January 2025 trial date was

continued. Defendants claim that this attorney attempted to contact one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys to ask for the continuance, but he never heard back.

Defendants contend that they continued exhausting efforts to find new counsel

until they were referred to and spoke with current counsel, Ann LeBlanc, on

November 18, 2024. Defendants contend that on November 21, 2024, Ms.

LeBlanc agreed to represent defendants with the hope that the trial would be

continued and with the caveat that it would be practically impossible to be fully

prepared to try the case without a continuance.

Considering the unique facts and circumstances of this case, we find that

good grounds existed to continue the trial date due to prior defense counsel’s

hearing disability. The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendants’

motion to continue. Requiring defendants’ new counsel to prepare for trial in a

six-week period, which spans the holiday season, will effectively deprive

defendants of their day in court. Accordingly, we grant defendants’ writ

application in part. The trial court’s December 16, 2024 ruling denying

defendants’ motion to continue the January 14, 2025 trial is reversed and we grant

the motion to continue. We, however, deny defendants’ writ application to the

extent that it seeks relief from the trial court’s denial of their request to extend pre-

trial deadlines so that they can conduct additional discovery, take depositions, and

add an additional trial expert. Defendants did not establish that their prior defense

counsel’s hearing issues affected compliance with the pre-trial deadlines set by the

trial court.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 30th day of December, 2024.

SUS MEJ JJM SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS DAY 12/30/2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-C-619 E-NOTIFIED 23rd Judicial District Court (Clerk) Hon. Jason Verdigets (DISTRICT JUDGE) Ann M. LeBlanc (Relator) Kathryn M. Caraway (Relator) Jordan M. Jeansonne (Respondent)

MAILED Erica L. Andrews (Relator) Matthew M. Coman (Respondent) Stephen M. Garcia (Respondent) Mary Margaret H. Moore (Relator) Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Attorney at Law 400 Poydras Street Garcia & Artigliere 3936 Bienville Street Suite 2045 400 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70119 New Orleans, LA 70130 Suite 2045 New Orleans, LA 70130