Roderick Vaughn Dominick Jr. v. Grambling State University by and through the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2019 CA 1402
RODERICK VAUGHN DOMINICK JR.
VERSUS
r
k(GRAMBLING STATE UNIVERSITY BY AND THROUGH THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
LOUISIANA
DATE OF JUDGMENT.• JUL 2 4 2120
ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUMBER C674310, SECTION 22, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
HONORABLE TIMOTHY KELLY, JUDGE
Tonya S. Johnson Counsel for Plaintiff A
- ppellant
New Orleans, Louisiana Roderick Vaughn Dominick Jr.
Jeff Landry Counsel for Defendant -Appellee
Attorney General State of Louisiana, through the Board
William David Coffey of Supervisors for the University of
Assistant Attorney General Louisiana System
New Orleans, Louisiana
Gregory S. Barkley
Assistant Attorney General
Shreveport, Louisiana
BEFORE: McDONALD, THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
Disposition: AFFIRMED.
CHUTZ, J.
Plaintiff-appellant, Roderick Vaughn Dominick Jr., appeals the trial court' s
judgment, sustaining a declinatory exception of insufficiency of service of process
and dismissing without prejudice his cause of action against defendant -appellee,
State of Louisiana, through the Board of Supervisors for the University of
Louisiana System ( the Board). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to the allegations of his petition, Dominick was enrolled as a
freshman at Grambling State University ( Grambling), living on campus in one of
the dormitories. On the night of September 21, 2017, a person ran into his room to
rob him. A struggle ensued during which Dominick was shot in the arm. Averring
he sustained injuries to his left humerus, nerve damage, and the loss of full use of
and permanent damage to his arm, Dominick claimed that Grambling did not offer
him any assistance or support.
On September 21, 2018, Dominick filed a petition for damages, naming the
Board as a defendant, averring that it was " authorized and mandated to direct,
control, supervise[,] and manage Grambling." He alleged that the Board was liable
to him for damages as a result of his injuries and for Grambling' s failures to take
appropriate steps to mitigate his losses and to provide adequate security on
campus.
On November 5, 2018, the Louisiana Attorney General filed a request for
10 -day notice of setting and of judgment on behalf of the Board. Thereafter, on
January 18, 2019, the Board subsequently filed a declinatory exception raising the
objection of insufficiency of service of process.
After a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment on April 15, 2019,
sustaining the exception of insufficiency of service of process and dismissing
Dominick' s cause of action without prejudice. After the trial court denied
Dominick' s motion for new trial, this appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
With few exceptions, citation and service are essential in all civil actions.
La. C. C. P. art. 1201A. Proper citation is the cornerstone of these actions.
Tranchant v. State, 2008- 0978 ( La. 1/ 21/ 09), 5 So. 3d 832, 834.
Pursuant to La. R.S. 13: 51071)( 1), "[ i] n all suits in which the state, a state
agency, or political subdivision ... is named as a party, service of citation shall be
requested within ninety days of the commencement of the action." If service is not
requested within the time period provided, the action " shall be dismissed without
prejudice"
after a contradictory motion as provided in La. C. C.P. art. 1672C. La.
R.S. 13: 51071)( 2). Article 1672C provides that such dismissal shall be rendered
unless good cause is shown why service could not be requested." Tranchant, 5
So. 3d at 834.
The requirement of La. R.S. 13: 5107D that service on state defendants shall
be requested within ninety days of the commencement of the action or be subject
to dismissal is not a punitive concept. The ninety -day request of service rule
balances the policies of seeing that every litigant has his day in court with the
policy that lawsuits, once filed, should be prosecuted without unreasonable delay.
In fact, it appears that by adopting the ninety -day request of service rule, the
legislature indicated its intent to shift the balance in favor of moving cases, once
filed, more quickly through the judicial system. Tranchant, 5 So. 3d at 835.
On appeal, emphasizing that he timely paid the appropriate filing fees,
Dominick asserts the trial court erred in failing to overrule the exception of
insufficient service of process because the failure to set forth an address for the
parties upon whom service is requested is not the same as failing to request service.
3
Service upon the defendant pursuant to La. R.S. 13: 51071)( 1) requires an
accurate request of service upon the proper agent. For service to be requested and
effectuated, the clerk must be provided with the correct name and address of those
persons to be served. The plain language of La. R.S. 13: 51071)( 1), without more,
requires that the clerk receive this information before it can be considered
requested." Tranchant, 5 So. 3d at 836.
In the service request of his petition, Dominick' s attorney simply stated,
Please Serve:/ Attorney General/ Board of Supervisors/ University System of
Louisiana." It is undisputed, and at the hearing Dominick conceded, that the
service instructions did not include an address for either the attorney general or the
Board. Thus, because the service instructions failed to provide the address of the
persons to be served, service cannot be considered to have been requested.
Additionally, our review of the record provides no basis for finding good
cause for why service could not be requested as permitted under Article 1672C.
This good -cause requirement is strictly construed. Barnett v. Louisiana State
Univ. Med. Cir. S
- hreveport, 2002- 2576 ( La. 2/ 7/ 03), 841 So.2d 725, 726. Mere
confusion over a party' s proper service information is not a sufficient basis for
good cause. Johnson v. Univ. Med. Ctr. in Lafayette, 2007- 1683 ( La. 11/ 21/ 07),
968 So.2d 724, 725. Similarly, inadvertence in requesting service on the part of the
plaintiff' s attorney is not a sufficient basis for good cause. Norbert v. Loucks,
2001- 1229 ( La. 6/ 29/ 01), 791 So. 2d 1283, 1285.
At the hearing, Dominick' s attorney stated that she received a letter on
October 30, 2018, indicating an attorney was enrolling on behalf of Grambling and
the attorney general, and noted the November 5, 2018 request for notice that had
been filed into the record. But she conceded that a defendant' s notice of a lawsuit
C!
was not tantamount to servicer and acknowledged that she failed to review the
petition to determine whether she had provided addresses for service of process
after receipt of the letter or the notice requests filed on behalf of the Board. Thus,
whether attributable to confusion or inadvertence, the failure of Dominick' s
attorney to request service by providing to the clerk the addresses of the parties to
be served as required under the provisions of La. R.S. 13: 5107D( 1) and the
jurisprudence is simply insufficient to constitute good cause. Accordingly, we find
no error in the trial court' s actions of sustaining the exception of insufficiency of
service of process and dismissing Dominick' s cause of action.
DECREE
For these reasons, the trial court' s judgment is affirmed. Appeal costs are
assessed against plaintiff-appellant, Roderick Vaughn Dominick. Jr.
AFFIRMED.
1 Rivers v. Groth Corp., 95- 2509 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 27/ 96), 680 So. 2d 762, 763 (" The law is
moreover patently clear that actual knowledge cannot supplant the need for strict compliance
with the requisites of proper citation.").
5