STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT KIMBERLY DUFRENE NO. 2021 CW 1217

VERSUS

CHARLES T. COLEMAN, DDS, DMD, AND CHARLES T. COLEMAN, FEB 18 2022.

A PROFESSIONAL DENTAL CORPORATION

In Re: Charles T. Coleman, DMD, and Charles T. Coleman, DMD, A Professional Dental Corporation, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2020- 11134.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966( B) ( 2) expressly states, "[ a] ny opposition to the motion [ for summary judgment] and all documents in support of the opposition shall be filed and served in accordance with Article 1313 not less than fifteen days prior to hearing on the motion." The the deadline established in Article 966( B)( 2) is mandatory, and the district court has no discretion to extend the time by which a party must file an opposition. Auricchio v. Harriston, 2020- 01167 ( La. 10/ 10/ 21), So. 3d 2021 WL 5865496 at * 1.

Herein, the district court erred in considering plaintiff/ respondent, Kimberly Dufrene' s, untimely filed opposition to defendants/ relators, Charles T. Coleman, DDS, DMD, and Charles T. Coleman, A Professional Dental Corporation' s, Motion for Summary Judgment. Dufrene filed her opposition seven days prior to the summary judgment hearing, rather than at least fifteen days before, as required by La. Code Civ. P. art. 966( B)( 2). As such, the district court' s August 11, 2021 judgment, denying defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court for a ruling on defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment without consideration of plaintiff' s opposition. See Auricchio, 2021 WL 5865496 at * 3.

PMC JEW MRT

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY OLEA OF COURT FOR THE COURT