The opinion
DR. CARROL I. FISCHER, JR. * NO. 2019-CA-0337
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL
CHAD ROGERS, CUVEE, * FOURTH CIRCUIT
L.L.C., DECATUR HOTELS,
LLC AND THE NEW * STATE OF LOUISIANA
ORLEANS BOARD OF TRADE,
LIMITED *
*
*******
CHASE, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS.
I join in the majority’s opinion but write separately to emphasize the split in
the Circuits. While I recognize that dismissal of a case because of abandonment is
a harsh remedy which should be employed sparingly, there is clearly a dispute
amongst the courts as to whether continuing a trial without date constitutes a step
in the prosecution of the case pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 561. See, e.g., Taylor v.
Dash Equipment & Supplies, Inc., 2018-0335, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 258
So.3d 909, 916 (unopposed motion to continue is not a step because it did not
request the court to set a new trial date; “indefinite continuance is not intended to
hasten the matter to judgment”); Bourg v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, 2012-0829, pp.
5-6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 45, 49 (“continuing the hearing on a
motion for summary judgment, without date, does not further the suit towards
judgment, and thus does not qualify as a ‘step’ to interrupt the accrual of the
abandonment period”); and Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc., 2009-0410, p. 6
(La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09), 22 So.3d 989, 994 (“[a] joint motion to continue without
date or indefinitely is not considered a step in the prosecution of a case, since by its
very nature, an indefinite continuance is not intended to hasten the matter to
judgment”).