Generally, plaintiffs bring an action against an adverse party to be made whole again in some way. Bringing a claim is a remedy seeking process. But, can a claimant’s inaction cause the proceeding to be dismissed? The Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal recently answered this question in the affirmative in a case out of Jefferson Parish.
Kevin Lewis filed a petition against Digital Cable alleging tortious conduct and seeking damages for injuries he sustained while their employee. A year later on November 17, 2009, the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson entered a preliminary default against Digital Cable. On September 16, 2014, nearly five years later, Mr. Lewis filed a motion for confirmation of the default judgment. Digital Cable filed a motion for dismissal for abandonment asserting that since more than three years had passed since Mr. Lewis’ last step in the case, an order of dismissal was required. Mr. Lewis opposed this motion and argued that abandonment was interrupted on November 28, 2011, because he served a notice of deposition for his physician, Dr. Ogbuokiri. Digital Cable argued that the notice of deposition entered into evidence did not contain a certificate of service thus there was no proof that the notice had actually been served on all parties; a requirement to interrupt abandonment. On January 13, 2015, the Trial Court signed an order dismissing the case for abandonment.
Mr. Lewis filed a motion to vacate the order and his motion was heard on March 2, 2015. Mr. Lewis once again argued that the abandonment period was interrupted by the deposition notice. His lawyer, Pius Obioha, testified that a signed notice of deposition and certificate of service was mailed to Dr. Ogbuokiri and to Digital Cable’s agent. It seems that at the 2015 hearing, a certificate of service obtained from Dr. Ogbuikiri’s office was introduced into evidence, however, its authenticity was questionable. When questioned as to why Mr. Obioha, as the lawyer, did not have a copy of the certificate he testified that someone in his office must have forgotten to make a copy and that he did not really look very hard for it. He did allegedly have the presence of mind to remember physically placing the notice and certificate in the mail; a fact not corroborated and supported solely by his own testimony. The Trial Court concluded that the notice of deposition should be admitted into evidence yet as an unauthenticated piece of evidence. Unable to authenticate the notice, the Trial Court upheld the dismissal order. Mr. Lewis appealed to the Fifth Circuit.