ROBIN LOPEZ MOTHER OF MINOR CHILDREN LONDON WILLIAMS AND DAKOTA FERNANDEZ v. ACUREN INSPECTION INC ABC INSURANCE COMPANY AND PHARO MARTINEZ (2026)

We grant appellees, Acuren Inspection, Inc. (“Acuren”) and Zurich American Insurance Company's (“Zurich”) (collectively, “defendants”) application for rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing their arguments that this Court erred in 1) applying de novo standard of review rather than an abuse of discretion standard; 2) considering plaintiff's appeal as a newly filed, post-judgment motion to continue when the record contains only one motion to continue; and 3) ignoring relevant facts such as the plaintiff failed to attempt any discovery while the suit was pending for two years and that this matter is distinguishable from the Succession of Hickman, 2022-0730, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/15/23), 359 So.3d 584, 590 and Scott v. City of New Orleans By and Through New Orleans Aviation Bd., 2025-0513, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/18/26), ---So.3d ----, 2026 WL 456887.

Subsequent to this Court's July 9, 2026 decision, appellee filed an application for rehearing, seeking reconsideration of our decision. First, the appellee is asserting that this Court applied de novo standard of review rather than abuse of discretion. The granting of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo, while denial of a continuance and discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Kazan v. Red Lion Hotels Corp., 2021-01820, p. 2 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 267, 269; see also Riggio v. Ports Am. Louisiana, L.L.C., 2023-0294, pp. 2-3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/13/23), 377 So.3d 418, 420. This Court did not substitute one standard for the other; rather, we addressed both issues presented by plaintiff in her assignments of error. As such, we do not find merit in appellees’ argument.

Next, appellees assert that this Court relied on incorrect procedural history and granted relief not sought. Appellees further assert that although this Court observed that the plaintiff's motion to continue was granted by the trial court, it erroneously accepted the plaintiff's contention that the trial court erred by denying a non-existent motion to continue. We disagree. While the plaintiff's motion to continue was granted, the trial court essentially refused to permit the additional discovery plaintiff sought prior to ruling on the motion for summary judgment. The record reflects that plaintiff consistently maintained that additional discovery was necessary, sought that discovery, raised the issue before the trial court and was not permitted to proceed before summary judgment was granted. As such, we do not find merit in this argument.

Lastly, appellees disagree with this Court's reliance on Succession of Hickman and Scott. Appellees argue that adequate discovery was granted to plaintiff because the petition was filed on January 19, 2023, which afforded plaintiff two years for discovery. This Court's decision appropriately considered the absence of a trial date and discovery deadline, plaintiff's pursuit of discovery, and plaintiff's repeated assertion that additional discovery was necessary. These considerations support the position that plaintiff had not yet received an adequate opportunity for discovery. Therefore, this argument is without merit.

For these reasons, we grant a limited rehearing, deny relief, and affirm our original opinion.

LIMITED REHEARING GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; ORIGINAL OPINION AFFIRMED

JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS

HERMAN, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT