DIAMOND RAYMOND NO. 25-C-444 VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT KERRY T. RAYMOND COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA

October 08, 2025 Linda Tran First Deputy Clerk

IN RE DIAMOND RAYMOND APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE VERCELL FIFFIE, DIVISION "A", NUMBER 82,232

Panel composed of Judges John J. Molaison, Jr., Scott U. Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel

WRIT GRANTED On July 30, 2024, Respondent, Kerry T. Raymond, filed a Petition for Divorce against Relator, Diamond Raymond. But Mr. Raymond did not request service on Ms. Raymond within ninety days as required by La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C).1 As a result, Ms. Raymond filed a Declinatory Exception of Insufficiency of Service of Process on November 6, 2024.

On July 23, 2025, 358 days after the petition was filed, the trial court considered and sustained Ms. Raymond’s exception, finding that the record contained no indication of any waiver of service or any attempted service by the sheriff. Instead of dismissing the case against Ms. Raymond without prejudice though, the trial court granted Mr. Raymond an additional fifteen days to request service, concluding that Mr. Raymond should be given an opportunity to cure the

La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C) provides in part that “[s]ervice of the citation shall be requested on all named defendants within ninety days of commencement of the action.”

25-C-444 defect pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 932. The trial court misapplied article 932 though, which states that “. . . if the court finds, on sustaining the objection that service of citation on the defendant was not requested timely, it may either dismiss the action as to that defendant without prejudice or, on the additional finding that service could not have been timely requested, order that service be effected within a specified time.” (Emphasis added).

La. C.C.P. art. 1672(C) further mandates dismissal without prejudice if service is not requested within ninety days after the trial court sustains such a declinatory exception, “unless good cause is shown why service could not be requested . . .”.

Louisiana courts have strictly construed the good cause requirement of La. C.C.P. art. 1672(C). For example, in Eugene v. Duroncelet, 19-224 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/3/19), 275 So.3d 971, 975, writ denied, 19-1393 (La. 11/25/19), 283 So.3d 500, this Court found that the plaintiff did not show good cause for failing to serve defendant within ninety days of commencement of the action when a letter requesting service was mailed to the Clerk of Court but was not received. See also Freeman v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 20-283 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/10/20), 307 So.3d 335, 338 (“Given that the requirement to request service within ninety days of filing suit is to be strictly construed, the unsupported explanation as to why plaintiff could not request service clearly did not constitute good cause within well-settled strict application of La. C.C.P. art. 1201(C).”)

Mr. Raymond offered no evidence or testimony during the hearing to explain why he could not have requested service within the ninety-day period and failed to show good cause why his failure to request service of Ms. Raymond within ninety days should be excused.

For these reasons, we find that the trial court erred when it gave Mr. Raymond an opportunity to “correct the deficiencies herein and or request service on defendant, Diamond Raymond.” Thus, we grant the supervisory writ filed by Ms. Raymond and render judgment dismissing the Petition for Divorce filed by Kerry T. Raymond without prejudice.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 8th day of October, 2025.

SUS JJM TSM

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. TRAN 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 10/08/2025 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:

25-C-444 E-NOTIFIED 40th District Court (Clerk) Honorable Vercell Fiffie (DISTRICT JUDGE) Rebecca A. Gilson (Relator) MAILED Justin P. LaFleur (Relator) Charles Ayles (Respondent) Attorney at Law Attorney at Law North Cate Street 5713 Superior Drive Hammond, LA 70404 Suite A5 Baton Rouge, LA 70816 r

■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your 11$1"18 and addRIS8 on the reverse so that we can r8tum the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mallpl8C¥J, or on the front If space pennlts. · 1. Article Addressed to: If Ya!, enter delivery addf8ss below: Jus · • Lafleur Atto~atLaw iilirth Cate Street Hammond, LA 70404 25-C-444 10-08-25

~IIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIII II I IIII II 111111111111111 9590 9402 2434 6249 3580 82 i□·~~~ .,...,_,,_ ,_._, - - · g~~I ~·Aec...,,. ..... a Ccllect en o.ove,y Mlrd18nclllle _ 2 _Artlcl ___ e _Num_ber_,__..,.fer_from--$81Y#ce--,........---- □ Ccllectcn DellYely Reetrlci,cl DeOwry O SlgnalU'e eannm.tlcn"' • '....... -J - ~ Mall a SignaluN Ccnllnnatlon 7012 1010 0003 7112 5577 bMallAllelltcledDeM-, ANlrtc19dDellWly •... PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Rehun Receipt