Shawn Mark Anderson and Allegra Wilson Anderson Versus U.S. Bank National Association, Through Its Parent U.S. Bankcorp

Opinion

SHAWN MARK ANDERSON AND NO. 24-C-343 ALLEGRA WILSON ANDERSON FIFTH CIRCUIT VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS PARENT U.S. BANKCORP STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 21, 2024

Linda Wiseman First Deputy Clerk

IN RE USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST JAMES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, DIVISION "C", NUMBER 75720

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT DENIED

Relator-defendant USAA Federal Savings Bank seeks supervisory review of a July 26, 2024 interlocutory ruling of the trial court denying relator's Motion for a New Trial and Motion to Continue Trial Date.

The Supreme Court has instructed the appellate courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction when (1) an appellate reversal will terminate the litigation, (2) there is no dispute of fact to be resolved, and (3) the trial court decision is arguably incorrect. Herlitz Constr. Co. v. Hotel Inv'rs of New Iberia, 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981).

Upon reviewing relator’s writ application, these criteria have not been met. In particular, it is unclear whether reversing the trial court’s ruling, delaying the trial, and forcing the trial court to reset relator’s motion for summary judgment will terminate the litigation. Relator’s application also points to unresolved issues of fact. In consideration of the above and in the interests of judicial economy, we decline to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction at this time.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 21st day of August, 2024.

TSM MEJ

1 SHAWN MARK ANDERSON AND NO. 24-C-343 ALLEGRA WILSON ANDERSON FIFTH CIRCUIT VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS PARENT U.S. BANKCORP STATE OF LOUISIANA

SCHLEGEL, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS I respectfully dissent. USAA timely filed its motion for summary judgment

and served it upon all parties on June 21, 2024, 66 days before the August 26, 2024

trial date. It is not relator’s fault that the trial court signed a rule to show cause on

June 25, 2024 setting a hearing for July 11, 2024, only 20 days after the filing of its

motion, in violation of La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(1)(a).

According to the deadlines set forth in Article 966(C)(1)(a), the trial court

should have set the motion for summary judgment between Monday, July 22, 2024

and Friday, July 26, 2024 (the latest date that the hearing could have been set).

Therefore, the trial court’s grant of plaintiffs’ motion to strike was erroneous. See

Digitech Computers, Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge, 21-1216 (La. App. 1 Cir.

10/20/21), 2021 WL 4892020 (First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment

denying as untimely the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, noting that the

motion and supporting documents were electronically received by the district court

and emailed to counsel for plaintiff 66 days prior to the trial).

Furthermore, plaintiffs’ motion to strike was procedurally deficient. La.

C.C.P. art. 963(B) requires that “[i]f the order applied for by written motion is one

to which the mover is not clearly entitled . . . the motion shall be served on and

tried contradictorily with the adverse party.” See also Henry v. Baton Rouge Sewer

& Drain Serv., Inc., 15-1385 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/15/16), 2016 WL 1545661, at *9.

1 Thus, the plaintiffs’ motion to strike was procedurally deficient because it was not

accompanied by a rule to show cause requesting that the motion be set for hearing.

Accordingly, I would grant USAA’s writ application, reverse and vacate the

trial court’s judgment striking USAA’s motion for summary judgment as untimely

and grant USAA’s motion to continue trial date. I would further remand this

matter with instructions to the trial court to set USAA’s motion for summary

judgment for hearing in accordance with the deadlines contained in La. C.C.P.

Article 966.

SUS

2 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 08/21/2024 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-343 E-NOTIFIED 40th District Court (Clerk) Honorable J. Sterling Snowdy (DISTRICT JUDGE) Camalla M. Kimbrough (Relator) Katie L. Dysart (Relator) Marc R. Michaud (Respondent) Carli M. Worsham (Relator)

MAILED