Preview:

9/20/02 "See News Release 067 for any concurrences and/or dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 02-CA-1900 TAMMY LANGLOIS IN HER OWN RIGHT AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR CHILD, KRYSTAL MARTIN V. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD AND NITA K. BRAUD ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, HONORABLE JANICE CLARK, JUDGE PER CURIAM*
The East Baton Rouge Parish School Board invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court to review a ruling of the district court declaring the 1996 version of La. R.S. 13:5107(D) unconstitutional. For the reasons assigned, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The underlying facts are not disputed. On September 5, 1996, Krystal Martin, a minor, was injured while riding on a school bus owned by the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board ("School Board") and driven by its employee, Nita K. Braud. On September 5, 1997, Tammy Langlois, Krystal's mother, filed suit against the School Board and Ms. Braud. In her petition, plaintiff requested that service upon the defendants be withheld. On July 22, 1998, more than ten months after the filing of the

*

Weimer, J., recused.

petition, plaintiff requested that the defendants be served. Service was accomplished upon the School Board on August 5, 1998, and upon Ms. Braud on August 10, 1998. On September 4, 1998, defendants filed a declinatory exception raising the objection of insufficiency of service of process. Relying upon the provisions of Act 63 of the 1996 First Extraordinary Legislative Session ("Act 63"), which enacted Subsection D of La. R.S. 13:5107,1 defendants argued that plaintiff's suit should be dismissed without prejudice because she failed to request service of citation within ninety days of filing the petition. On September 29, 1998, plaintiff amended her petition to raise a constitutional challenge to La. R.S. 13:5107(D). Specifically, plaintiff argued that the statute discriminates against the class of persons who filed suits against the state or another governmental defendant between May 9, 1996, the effective date of Act 63, and January 1, 1998, the effective date of Acts 1997, No. 518 ("Act 518"), which amended and reenacted La. R.S. 13:5107(D). For purposes of this case, the principal change made by Act 518 was to add Subsection 2 to Section D of the statute, which provided: If service is not requested by the party filing the action within that period, the action shall be dismissed without prejudice, after contradictory motion as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Article 1672(C), as to the state, state
1

As enacted by Act 63, La. R.S. 13:5107(D) provided: In all suits in which the state, a state agency, or political subdivision, or any officer or employee thereof is named as a party, service of citation shall be requested within ninety days of the filing of the initial pleading, which names a state, a state agency, or political subdivision or any officer or employee thereof as a party. If service is not requested by the party filing the action within that period, the action shall be dismissed without prejudice, after contradictory hearing, as to the state, state agency, or political subdivision, or any officer or employee thereof, who has not been served. When the state, a state agency, or political subdivision or any officer or employee thereof, is dismissed as a party pursuant to this Section, the filing of the action, even as against other defendants, shall not interrupt or suspend the running of prescription as to the state, state agency, or political subdivision, or any officer or employee thereof. The effect of interruption of prescription as to other persons shall not be affected thereby. [emphasis added] 2

agency, or political subdivision, or any officer or employee thereof, who has not been served. At the same time, the legislature enacted La. Code Civ. P. art. 1672(C), which allows a party to make a showing of "good cause" why service could not be requested. Section 5 of Act 518 specifically made these amendments applicable only to suits filed on or after January 1, 1998. Therefore, plaintiff argued that persons (like herself) who filed suit after the effective date of Act 63 but before the effective date of Act 518 are treated differently than persons who filed suit after the effective date of Act 518, because the former do not have an opportunity to make a showing of good cause. After a hearing, the district court overruled defendants' exception of insufficiency of service of process and declared La. R.S. 13:5107(D), as it was in effect between May 9, 1996 and January 1, 1998, unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. In its reasons for judgment, the district court found "no compelling state interest that would subserve the treating of this particular classification disparagingly." Defendants sought review of the district court's ruling in this court, and we ordered the matter docketed as an appeal pursuant to La. Const. art. V,

Download 2002-CA-1900 TAMMY LANGLOIS IN HER OWN RIGHT AND ON BEHALGF OF THE MINOR CHILD,

Louisiana Law