RASHONDA LEBLANC AND DOMINIQUE LEBLANC v. LAKE AREA MEDICAL CENTER ET AL (2023)

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966(B)(2) states that the opposition to a motion for summary judgment “shall be filed and served ․ not less than fifteen days prior to the hearing on the motion.” The language in this article is mandatory and not permissive “unless extended by the court and agreed to by all of the parties [emphasis added].” There was no agreement to extend the fifteen-day deadline for the filing of an opposition. That is undisputed. It is also undisputed that Plaintiffs filed their opposition eight days prior to the hearing. Thus, Plaintiffs’ opposition is untimely.

This Court in Auricchio v. Harriston, 2020-01167, p. 1 (La. 10/10/21), 332 So.3d 660, 661, held that “in the absence of consent by the parties, a trial court has no discretion to extend [article 966(B)(2)’s] fifteen-day deadline for filing an opposition.” Thus, the lower courts erred in allowing plaintiffs’ opposition in this case.

I find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting plaintiffs a continuance, but said opposition must be disallowed and not considered at the hearing on the motion for judgment, lest we trample the timelines set forth in the summary judgment article.

Genovese, J., would grant in part and assigns reasons.