TONY WASHINGTON * NO. 2022-C-0846
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL CHURCHILL DOWNS * LOUISIANA HORSERACING FOURTH CIRCUIT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FAIR * GROUNDS RACE COURSE & STATE OF LOUISIANA SLOTS *******
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2022-03582, DIVISION “F-14” Honorable Jennifer M Medley, ****** Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase ****** (Court composed of Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase)
Sean P. Mount Bryce M. Addison Talbot M. Quinn ADAMS AND REESE, LLP 755 Magazine Street New Orleans, La 70130
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR/DEFENDANT
R. Christian Bonin BONIN LAW FIRM, ALEXANDRE E. BONIN, APLC 4224 Canal St. New Orleans, La 70119
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED; CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE JANUARY 27, 2023 TGC RML SCJ Relator/Defendant, Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing Company, LLC
d/b/a Fair Grounds Racecourse and Slots (hereinafter “Fairgrounds”) seeks
supervisory review of the trial court’s November 4, 2022 judgment denying its
peremptory exception of prescription. Specifically, the Fairgrounds submits that
the trial court erred in concluding that prescription was interrupted for
Respondent/Plaintiff Tony Washington’s (hereinafter “Mr. Washington”) claims
when he attempted to electronically file his petition for damages on March 15,
2022. For the following reasons, we find the trial court erred in denying the
exception of prescription and reverse the ruling of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
On March 16, 2021, Mr. Washington alleges that he suffered injuries at the
Fairgrounds when a slot machine opened suddenly, struck his knee, and caused
him to suffer a torn meniscus. On March 15, 2022, Mr. Washington maintains that
his attorney attempted to electronically file his original petition for damages.
However, the petition for damages was not officially filed until April 25, 2022. An
amended petition was filed on May 5, 2022.
1 On June 28, 2022, Fairgrounds filed a peremptory exception of prescription
maintaining that Mr. Washington’s petition prescribed on its face pursuant to La.
C.C.P. art. 3492.1 Mr. Washington opposed Fairgrounds’ exception of prescription
arguing that: (1) prescription was interrupted on March 15, 2022 when he
attempted to electronically file his petition; (2) prescription did not begin to run
until April 30, 2021 when the injury was discovered; (3) prescription was
suspended when Mr. Washington had COVID-19; and (4) prescription was
suspended for an additional thirty days due to Hurricane Ida.
The trial court held a hearing on Fairgrounds’ exception of prescription on
October 13, 2022. At the hearing, Mr. Washington argued that he believed the
petition for damages had been filed because he did not receive an e-mail
confirmation from the Clerk of Civil District Court indicating that there was a
problem with his transmission. In support of this contention, Mr. Washington
submitted two documents which he contends proves that he “attempted” to file his
petition on March 15, 2022. The first document, a “screen shot,” dated September
19, 2022, showing that a PDF of the petition was created on March 15, 2022. The
second document, dated September 19, 2022, is copy of an e-mail acknowledging
receipt of funds to the Mr. Washington’s attorneys’ escrow account. After hearing
arguments, the trial court denied Fairgrounds’ exception, finding that Mr.
Washington established that prescription was interrupted when he “attempted” to
file his petition on March 15, 2022. The trial court stated that Mr. Washington’s
“attempt” to file the petition is akin to the service of pleading rules set forth in La.
C.C.P. art. 1313.2 Thus, since Mr. Washington did not receive a “bounce back
1 La. C.C.P. art. 3492 provides, in pertinent part, “[d]elictual action are subject to a liberative
prescription of one year.”
2 message” from the Clerk of Court, the trial court determined that the pleading was
perceived to be accepted.
Fairgrounds seeks supervisory review of the trial court’s ruling.
Standard of Review
When prescription is raised by a peremptory exception with evidence
introduced at the hearing, this Court reviews the trial court’s findings of fact on the
issue of prescription under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.
London Towne Condo. Homeowner’s Ass’n. v. London Towne Co., 2006-0401, p.4
(La. 10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1227, 1231.
Discussion
Fairgrounds argues that the trial court erred in concluding that prescription
was interrupted when Mr. Washington attempted to electronically file his petition
on March 15, 2022. Further, Fairgrounds maintain that the exhibits presented by
Mr. Washington in his opposition to the peremptory exception of prescription are
inadmissible.
The mover ordinarily bears the burden of proof at the trial on an exception
of prescription. Fisher v. Blood Center, 2020-0551, p.5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/10/21),
313 So.3d 1275, 1278. “However, if prescription is evident on the face of the
pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the action has not prescribed.”
Carter v. Haygood, 2004-0646, p.9 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, 1267. Mr.
Washington’s petition for damages indicates that the event that caused his injuries
occurred on March 16, 2021 at the Fairgrounds. He alleges that he attempted to
electronically file his petition on March 15, 2022; however, the petition was not
2 La. C.C.P. art. 1313 provides the law governing service by mail, delivery, or electronic means
for every pleading subsequent to the original petition.
3 accepted by the Clerk of Court on that date. On April 25, 2022, Mr. Washington
successfully filed his petition. Thus, on its face, the petition is prescribed and the
burden shifts to Mr. Washington to demonstrate that his claim is not prescribed.
Mr. Washington asserts that he timely submitted his petition for damages
when attempted to electronically file his petition on March 15, 2022. He argues
that he completed all of the required information within the Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans’ (hereinafter “CDC”) e-filing portal. Mr. Washington
maintains that he received no message indicating that the pleading was rejected
and instead learned approximately one month later that his petition was never
recorded or filed. Further, at the hearing, Mr. Washington submitted two exhibits
pertaining to his attempted e-filing: (1) a PDF image of the petition dated March
15, 2022 and (2) an email regarding his escrow account from the CDC Clerk’s
Office.
Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescriptive period of one year
which commences to run from the day injury or damage is sustained. La.C.C. art.
3492. Prescription is interrupted by the filing of suit in a court of competent
jurisdiction and venue. La.C.C. art. 3492. The effect of interruption of prescription,
as contrasted with suspension of prescription, is that the time that has run prior to
the interruption is not counted; prescription commences to run anew from the last
day of the interruption. La.C.C. art. 3466.
La. C.C.P. art. 253(B), provides, in pertinent part, “[a] pleading or document
filed electronically is deemed filed on the date and time stated on the confirmation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TONY WASHINGTON * NO. 2022-C-0846
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL CHURCHILL DOWNS * LOUISIANA HORSERACING FOURTH CIRCUIT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A FAIR * GROUNDS RACE COURSE & STATE OF LOUISIANA SLOTS *******
APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2022-03582, DIVISION “F-14” Honorable Jennifer M Medley, ****** Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase ****** (Court composed of Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase)
Sean P. Mount Bryce M. Addison Talbot M. Quinn ADAMS AND REESE, LLP 755 Magazine Street New Orleans, La 70130
COUNSEL FOR RELATOR/DEFENDANT
R. Christian Bonin BONIN LAW FIRM, ALEXANDRE E. BONIN, APLC 4224 Canal St. New Orleans, La 70119
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED; CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE JANUARY 27, 2023 TGC RML SCJ Relator/Defendant, Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing Company, LLC
d/b/a Fair Grounds Racecourse and Slots (hereinafter “Fairgrounds”) seeks
supervisory review of the trial court’s November 4, 2022 judgment denying its
peremptory exception of prescription. Specifically, the Fairgrounds submits that
the trial court erred in concluding that prescription was interrupted for
Respondent/Plaintiff Tony Washington’s (hereinafter “Mr. Washington”) claims
when he attempted to electronically file his petition for damages on March 15,
2022. For the following reasons, we find the trial court erred in denying the
exception of prescription and reverse the ruling of the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
On March 16, 2021, Mr. Washington alleges that he suffered injuries at the
Fairgrounds when a slot machine opened suddenly, struck his knee, and caused
him to suffer a torn meniscus. On March 15, 2022, Mr. Washington maintains that
his attorney attempted to electronically file his original petition for damages.
However, the petition for damages was not officially filed until April 25, 2022. An
amended petition was filed on May 5, 2022.
1 On June 28, 2022, Fairgrounds filed a peremptory exception of prescription
maintaining that Mr. Washington’s petition prescribed on its face pursuant to La.
C.C.P. art. 3492.1 Mr. Washington opposed Fairgrounds’ exception of prescription
arguing that: (1) prescription was interrupted on March 15, 2022 when he
attempted to electronically file his petition; (2) prescription did not begin to run
until April 30, 2021 when the injury was discovered; (3) prescription was
suspended when Mr. Washington had COVID-19; and (4) prescription was
suspended for an additional thirty days due to Hurricane Ida.
The trial court held a hearing on Fairgrounds’ exception of prescription on
October 13, 2022. At the hearing, Mr. Washington argued that he believed the
petition for damages had been filed because he did not receive an e-mail
confirmation from the Clerk of Civil District Court indicating that there was a
problem with his transmission. In support of this contention, Mr. Washington
submitted two documents which he contends proves that he “attempted” to file his
petition on March 15, 2022. The first document, a “screen shot,” dated September
19, 2022, showing that a PDF of the petition was created on March 15, 2022. The
second document, dated September 19, 2022, is copy of an e-mail acknowledging
receipt of funds to the Mr. Washington’s attorneys’ escrow account. After hearing
arguments, the trial court denied Fairgrounds’ exception, finding that Mr.
Washington established that prescription was interrupted when he “attempted” to
file his petition on March 15, 2022. The trial court stated that Mr. Washington’s
“attempt” to file the petition is akin to the service of pleading rules set forth in La.
C.C.P. art. 1313.2 Thus, since Mr. Washington did not receive a “bounce back
1 La. C.C.P. art. 3492 provides, in pertinent part, “[d]elictual action are subject to a liberative
prescription of one year.”
2 message” from the Clerk of Court, the trial court determined that the pleading was
perceived to be accepted.
Fairgrounds seeks supervisory review of the trial court’s ruling.
Standard of Review
When prescription is raised by a peremptory exception with evidence
introduced at the hearing, this Court reviews the trial court’s findings of fact on the
issue of prescription under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.
London Towne Condo. Homeowner’s Ass’n. v. London Towne Co., 2006-0401, p.4
(La. 10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1227, 1231.
Discussion
Fairgrounds argues that the trial court erred in concluding that prescription
was interrupted when Mr. Washington attempted to electronically file his petition
on March 15, 2022. Further, Fairgrounds maintain that the exhibits presented by
Mr. Washington in his opposition to the peremptory exception of prescription are
inadmissible.
The mover ordinarily bears the burden of proof at the trial on an exception
of prescription. Fisher v. Blood Center, 2020-0551, p.5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/10/21),
313 So.3d 1275, 1278. “However, if prescription is evident on the face of the
pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the action has not prescribed.”
Carter v. Haygood, 2004-0646, p.9 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1261, 1267. Mr.
Washington’s petition for damages indicates that the event that caused his injuries
occurred on March 16, 2021 at the Fairgrounds. He alleges that he attempted to
electronically file his petition on March 15, 2022; however, the petition was not
2 La. C.C.P. art. 1313 provides the law governing service by mail, delivery, or electronic means
for every pleading subsequent to the original petition.
3 accepted by the Clerk of Court on that date. On April 25, 2022, Mr. Washington
successfully filed his petition. Thus, on its face, the petition is prescribed and the
burden shifts to Mr. Washington to demonstrate that his claim is not prescribed.
Mr. Washington asserts that he timely submitted his petition for damages
when attempted to electronically file his petition on March 15, 2022. He argues
that he completed all of the required information within the Civil District Court for
the Parish of Orleans’ (hereinafter “CDC”) e-filing portal. Mr. Washington
maintains that he received no message indicating that the pleading was rejected
and instead learned approximately one month later that his petition was never
recorded or filed. Further, at the hearing, Mr. Washington submitted two exhibits
pertaining to his attempted e-filing: (1) a PDF image of the petition dated March
15, 2022 and (2) an email regarding his escrow account from the CDC Clerk’s
Office.
Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescriptive period of one year
which commences to run from the day injury or damage is sustained. La.C.C. art.
3492. Prescription is interrupted by the filing of suit in a court of competent
jurisdiction and venue. La.C.C. art. 3492. The effect of interruption of prescription,
as contrasted with suspension of prescription, is that the time that has run prior to
the interruption is not counted; prescription commences to run anew from the last
day of the interruption. La.C.C. art. 3466.
La. C.C.P. art. 253(B), provides, in pertinent part, “[a] pleading or document
filed electronically is deemed filed on the date and time stated on the confirmation
of the electronic filing sent from the system…” It further provides that all filings
may be transmitted electronically according to the system established by a Clerk of
Court or by Louisiana Clerks’ Remote Access Authority. La C.C.P. art. 253(B).
4 The Remote Access User Manual for CDC indicates that after payment and filing a
pleading there is a window indicating that the filing was successful. Further, you
can view the most recent filing by clicking on a tab labeled “View Filing.”
It is undisputed that Mr. Washington’s petition was not filed until April 25,
2022. However, the germane issue is whether his attempt to file his petition on
March 15, 2022, interrupted prescription. La. C.C.P. art. 253 is clear and
unambiguous, a pleading is deemed filed on the date stated on the confirmation
from the Clerk of Court. Mr. Washington failed to present any documentation of
proof of filing on March 15, 2022. Rather, he presented a document (e-mail)
showing that money was placed into his escrow account on March 15, 2022. Mr.
Washington failed to show that any funds had been deducted from his account for
the pleading on March 15, 2022. In addition, the screenshot of the PDF only
establishes that a PDF was created on that date. The trial court found that Mr.
Washington’s failure to receive a “bounce back” message was sufficient to
interrupt prescription. La. C.C.P. art. 253 requires the affirmative act, i.e. a
confirmation of filing e-mail from the Clerk of Court. Based upon the
documentation presented, we find the trial court erred in denying the exception of
prescription.
In accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 253(B), Mr. Washington’s petition for
damages is deemed filed on April 25, 2022. The alleged accident occurred on
March 16, 2021 and a petition was not filed until April 25, 2022. Accordingly, we
find Mr. Washington’s claims are prescribed.
5 Decree
For the foregoing reasons we grant Fairgrounds’ supervisory writ, reverse
the November 4, 2022 judgement of the trial court, and dismiss Mr. Washington’s
petition with prejudice.
WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED; CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE