BAXTER v. STATE (2026)

Plaintiff appeals the portion of the district court judgment that sustained the peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription filed by Defendant, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, and dismissed all state law claims asserted by the Plaintiff against Catholic Charities with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The background facts and procedural history of this case are fully set forth in the related appeal, Baxter v. State of Louisiana, 2025-0731 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/25/26), ––– So.3d ––––, decided this same date. For efficiency, we discuss only the procedural history relevant to the current appeal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, Michael Baxter, filed a petition for damages on December 19, 2022, and later an amended petition for damages on March 10, 2023, against Catholic Charities, the State of Louisiana, and Judge Adam Haney in state court. As to Catholic Charities, Baxter specifically alleged that it wrongfully pursued and facilitated the adoption of the child without his consent and wrongfully withheld information regarding the child's whereabouts. In addition, Baxter alleged Catholic Charities “had an indirect and immediate interest and an undisclosed relationship” with Judge Haney to terminate his parental rights and that Catholic Charities and Judge Haney “acted in concert in matters alleged ․ and that he was subject to a continued tort violation of his constitutional rights beginning in early 2016 until the present.”

In response, the named defendants filed a number of exceptions. Pertinent to this appeal is the peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription filed by Catholic Charities.¹ Catholic Charities asserted that the last date upon which Baxter alleged any action by Catholic Charities is May 20, 2016, the date of the hearing during which Baxter's parental rights were terminated. As this date is well beyond the one-year liberative prescription for delictual actions, Catholic Charities argued that Baxter's state law claims should be dismissed. The matter was set to be heard on July 11, 2023, but after several continuances, the hearing was reset for December 2, 2024.

Baxter originally filed an opposition to the exceptions filed by the State and Judge Haney (collectively “the State Defendants”) on January 30, 2024, but later fax-filed a “supplemental memorandum” in opposition to the exceptions on November 26, 2024. Therein, Baxter stated that he submitted the supplemental memorandum to “additionally oppose arguments made by Catholic Charities related to prescription and res judicata” and addressed those arguments for the first time. Baxter argued that Catholic Charities is implicated in every action committed by the State Defendants by virtue of pleading an alleged conspiracy between Catholic Charities and the State Defendants. Further, Baxter stated that every day he endures the realization that he will never have a relationship with his child “acts as a fresh infliction of distress,” thereby constituting a continuing tort commencing the prescriptive period anew. Alternatively, Baxter argued that the last injury-causing event was his release from probation in September of 2020 or the onset of his extreme emotional distress over the situation later that year. Lastly, Baxter argued the prescriptive period was suspended pursuant to the third category of the contra non valentem doctrine due to “Defendants’ strategy to obstruct justice and delay the pursuit of his claims” by allegedly inciting a “genuine fear that such legal actions might lead to an extension of his probation or even wrongful incarceration for a probation violation.”

The following day, Catholic Charities filed a supplemental reply memorandum to object to Baxter's supplemental memorandum. Catholic Charities first argued that Baxter's supplemental memorandum was untimely pursuant to Rule 9.9(c) of the Louisiana District Court Rules (“Rule 9.9”) and should not be considered. Catholic Charities then addressed each of Baxter's arguments asserted in the supplemental opposition.

All exceptions were ultimately heard on December 2, 2024. Catholic Charities introduced all exhibits attached to its memorandum in support of its exceptions into evidence, including Baxter's previously dismissed federal suit (“the MDLA suit”), the amended MDLA suit, and the order dismissing the MDLA suit. Catholic Charities also renewed its objection to Baxter's late-filed supplemental opposition, which the district court sustained and therefore prohibited Baxter from arguing any topics contained in the supplemental memorandum. Baxter did not introduce any evidence in opposition to Catholic Charities’ exception.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court sustained Catholic Charities’ exception raising the objection of prescription with respect to all state law claims asserted by Baxter against Catholic Charities. Specifically, with regard to the exception raising the objection of prescription, the district court found the matter was prescribed on the face of the petition. The court also rejected Baxter's characterization of his claims as a continuing tort and determined Baxter did not allege acts by Catholic Charities following the adoption of the child in 2016. The district court further found amendment of the petition would not cure the bases for the exception, and therefore, it did not provide Baxter an opportunity to amend his petition. The district court signed a written judgment to that effect on December 19, 2024.²

On appeal, Baxter only assigns error to the portion of the district court's judgment that sustained Catholic Charities’ exception raising the objection of prescription and dismissed his state law claims against Catholic Charities. According to Baxter, the district court's ruling on Catholic Charities’ exception raising the objection of prescription should be reversed because: (1) the district court erred in sustaining the exception raising the objection of prescription despite allegations of continuing torts; (2) the district court failed to consider whether the doctrine of contra non valentem suspended prescription while Baxter was on probation; (3) the district court failed to consider that prescriptive periods were suspended during the pendency of certain emergency orders of the Governor; (4) the district court erred in treating Baxter's probation under La. R.S. 14:122 as a bar to relief although that statute was repealed ³ ; (5) the district court erred by disregarding well-pled allegations of the petition as “conclusory”; and (6) the district court erred in refusing to provide Baxter an opportunity to amend his petition to cure any alleged defects.

LOUISIANA DISTRICT COURT RULE 9.9 OBJECTION

Baxter asserts the district court erred in sustaining Catholic Charities’ objection to Baxter's opposition to its exceptions as untimely. Rule 9.9 states, in pertinent part:

(c) A party who opposes an exception or motion shall concurrently furnish the trial judge and serve on all other parties an opposition memorandum so it is received at least eight calendar days before the scheduled hearing, except for motions for summary judgment, which delays are established by La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 966.

* * *

(e) Parties who fail to comply with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Rule may forfeit the privilege of oral argument. If a party fails to timely serve a memorandum, thus necessitating a continuance to give the opposing side a fair chance to respond, the court may order the late filing party to pay the opposing side's costs incurred on account of the untimeliness.

The district court's decision to prohibit oral argument for those who fail to comply with the delay requirements of Rule 9.9 is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Teague v. Forest River, Inc., 2024-0975 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/23/25), 409 So.3d 1152, 1160.

Baxter argues Rule 9.9 must be read in harmony with Louisiana law governing computation of time, La. C.C.P. art. 5059, which states, in pertinent part, that when a deadline falls on a legal holiday, “the period runs until the end of the next day that is not a legal holiday.” In this case, after several continuances, the hearing on Catholic Charities’ exceptions was ultimately scheduled to take place on December 2, 2024. Eight days prior to that date was Sunday, November 24, 2024. Baxter asserts Sundays are legal holidays, and therefore, his fax-filing on the next day that was not a legal holiday, November 25, 2024, was timely under La. C.C.P. art. 5059 once it was perfected pursuant to La. R.S. 13:850 by filing the original at the clerk of court on December 2, 2024.

Rule 9.9(c) requires service of an opposition memorandum on the moving party and delivery to the judge eight days prior to the hearing. Although Catholic Charities acknowledged it received a copy of the supplemental memorandum on November 25, 2024, the supplemental opposition is marked as fax-filed with the clerk of court on November 26, 2024. Therefore, even if we were to accept Baxter's argument, the copy required to be provided to the court was still untimely.⁴ Therefore, we find no abuse of the district court's vast discretion in sustaining Catholic Charities’ objection to the late-filed opposition to its exceptions and prohibiting oral argument on the matters contained therein.⁵

OBJECTION OF PRESCRIPTION

For the reasons stated in the companion case of Baxter v. State of Louisiana, 2025-0731 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/25/26), ––– So.3d ––––, in which a separate decision has been rendered by this court on this date, we find prescription was not suspended as to Baxter's claims against Catholic Charities under the doctrine of contra non valentem, the continuing tort theory, or emergency orders of the governor.⁶

However, Baxter made a separate allegation as to Catholic Charities in his amended petition: that sometime after he was released on probation the first time (and consequently sometime after the 2016 hearing where his parental rights were terminated), he made several attempts to reach out to Catholic Charities “to inquire on the well-being of [the child] and to give gifts he had purchased for [the child]” and Catholic Charities told him that he “need [not] reach out or provide any gifts and that [the child] was being taken care of.” At the trial on Catholic Charities’ exception, Catholic Charities introduced a minute entry from Baxter's criminal case dated September 15, 2020. The minute entry states, in pertinent part, that the court ordered Baxter's probation be terminated satisfactorily and that the charges and proceedings be dismissed. Therefore, based on this evidence, the above-described actions of Catholic Charities alleged by Baxter in his amended petition necessarily occurred prior to the termination of his probation on September 15, 2020.

Until there is a decision by a federal court that it lacks jurisdiction, a federal suit interrupts prescription, and interruption continues as long as the federal suit is pending. See La. C.C. art. 3463(A). Baxter filed the MDLA suit on September 26, 2021. September 26, 2021, is over one year from September 15, 2020, the date Baxter was released from his probation, or any other date prior to September 15, 2020. Accordingly, we find any claim Baxter had against Catholic Charities for its refusal to allow him contact with the child was prescribed by the time he filed the MDLA suit. As such, prescription was not interrupted by filing the MDLA suit, and any state court claims are prescribed.

As we noted in the companion case, Baxter, supra, it does not appear that Catholic Charities’ objection to the amended petition is curable, as every action of Catholic Charities and/or the State Defendants detailed in Baxter's amended petition occurred over one year prior to him filing the MDLA suit. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny Baxter the opportunity to amend his petition.

DECREE

For the above and foregoing reasons, the district court's December 19, 2024 judgment sustaining the exception raising the objection of prescription raised by Defendant, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, and thereby dismissing Plaintiff's claims against it with prejudice is affirmed. We decline to assess costs in this matter.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State and Judge Haney filed a joint declinatory exception raising the objection of insufficiency of service of process and peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action and prescription. Baxter appealed the district court's decision on these exceptions as well, which are the subject of docket no. 2025-0731, also issued on this date.Catholic Charities also filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata. The district court sustained this exception and accordingly dismissed Baxter's federal law claims against Catholic Charities with prejudice. Baxter does not assign error to this ruling on appeal.

2.   Notice of judgment was mailed on January 9, 2025. Baxter filed a motion for appeal on January 27, 2025, which the district court granted on February 4, 2025. On that same day, the district court provided written reasons at Baxter's request.

3.   We note that La. R.S. 14:122 was not repealed. To the extent Baxter argues La. R.S. 14:122 is unconstitutional, no controlling authority has made such a finding. See State v. James, 2019-0715 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/6/19), 364 So.3d 52 (vacating defendant's conviction for violation of La. R.S. 14:122), rev'd, 2020-0068 (La. 4/27/20), 295 So.3d 388.

4.   We note that Baxter argued at the hearing that, although the supplemental opposition is marked as fax-filed on November 26, 2024, he actually fax-filed it on November 25, 2024. Baxter did not present any evidence to contradict the date-stamped copy in the court's record.

5.   An abuse of discretion generally results from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner, which means the absence of a rational basis for the action taken. Cregg v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2023-0127 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/1/24), 385 So.3d 280, 287-88, writ denied, 2024-00409 (La. 6/5/24), 385 So.3d 1158. Thus, a district court's discretionary action will not be disturbed on review if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of the district court's action. Cregg, 385 So.3d at 288.

6.   We further acknowledge Baxter claims Catholic Charities was engaged in a conspiracy with the State Defendants. We found in the companion case that all of the State Defendants’ actions occurred in 2016. Therefore, even if we were to impute the State Defendants’ actions to Catholic Charities as well, these actions have prescribed. See Baxter v. State of Louisiana, 2025-0731 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/25/26), ––– So.3d ––––, ––––.

EDWARDS, J.