ERIE THONN v. BRADLEY EGENBERG AND EGENBERG APLC (2022)

I do not question the trial judge's finding of good cause in granting a continuance in this matter, as it is within his discretion to do so; however, I do find fault and error in not granting defendants’ motion to strike due to plaintiff's untimely filed opposition as mandated by La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B)(2). See also Auricchio v. Harriston, 20-1167 (La. 10/10/12), 332 So.3d 660.

It is uncontroverted that plaintiff's opposition was not timely filed fifteen days prior to the hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendants herein. Thus, defendants’ motion to strike should have been granted, and said opposition should not be considered at the continued hearing. To allow consideration of an untimely filed opposition violates the mandates of La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B)(2) and gives the plaintiff, as a result of the continuance granted herein, two bites of the apple.

I would grant this writ, reverse the lower courts, and grant defendants’ motion to strike.

Genovese, J., would grant this writ and assigns the following reasons: