Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

928 So. 2d 536

Docket No. 2006-C-0175.

Buggage v. Volks Constructors

Edward BUGGAGE v. VOLKS CONSTRUCTORS, A Division of AKM, LLC., ABC and XYZ Insurance Companies and John Fridge.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided May 5, 2006.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2006-05-05

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan (2011), Mahoney v. East Carroll Parish Police Jury (2012)

35 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t] he time limitation established by La. C.C.P. art. 966(B) for the serving of affidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is mandatory; affidavits not timely filed can be ruled inadmissible and properly excluded by the trial court.”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including 134 So. 3d 122 - Smith v. Rapides Healthcare System, L.L.C., Madere v. Louise Gautreaux Collins, M.D. & Ochsner Med. Center-Kenner, LLC

“It is clear in this case that Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Rapides's motion for summary judgment three days prior to a hearing on the matter and that the hearing had already been continued once at the request of Plaintiffs. Thus, the filing was clearly not timely under either La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B) or Uniform Rules of the District Courts Rule 9.9. Given the facts, the law, and Plaintiffs' lack of due diligence, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in excluding Plaintiffs' opposition.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 977 So. 2d 310 - DeVILLE v. Pearce

Relies on 506 So. 2d 1234 - American Bank & Tru. Co. v. Inte. Dev. Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-05-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1PER CURIAM.

¶2Writ granted. The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed. The trial court's ruling granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Volks Constructors, Inc., is reinstated.

¶3The court of appeal erred as a matter of law in considering a late-filed opposition to the motion for summary judgment, which consisted of a memorandum and a purported affidavit of plaintiff, in its de novo review of the merits of the summary judgment motion. The opposition had been disallowed by the trial court, which acted within its discretion in excluding an opposition filed a few minutes before the scheduled hearing on the motion.

¶4The time limitation established by La. C.C.P. art. 966(B) for the serving of affidavits in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is mandatory; affidavits not timely filed can be ruled inadmissible and properly excluded by the trial court. See American Bank & Trust Company v. International Development Corporation, Inc.,506 So.2d 1234, 1235-36 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987). Given the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in excluding the opposition, and thus no error in granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

/928/so2d/536 · .json · Public domain