The 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