REED v. RESTORATIVE HOME HEALTH CARE LLC (2020)

Granted. The trial court abused its discretion in granting a continuance solely to hear oral argument on a motion for summary judgment while closing the record to further filings when the grounds for the requested continuance were trial conflict and inadequate discovery. As noted in Chief Judge Williams's dissent, La.C.C.P. art. 966 was revised in 2015, and the Official Revision Comments make the legislative intent of the 2015 amendments clear:

(d) Subparagraphs (B)(1), (B)(2) and (B)(3) are new. They establish the time periods for filing or opposing motions for summary judgment. These provisions supersede Rule 9.9 of the District Court Rules but at the same time recognize the ability of the trial court and all of the parties to enter in to a case management or scheduling order or other order to establish deadlines different from those provided by this Article. Nevertheless, these orders may not shorten the period of time allowed for a party to file or oppose a motion for summary judgment under this Article․

(Emphasis added). Thus, when a court grants a motion to continue a hearing on a motion for summary judgment, the filing deadlines are reset. In this case, the trial court did not permit a resetting of the deadlines in conjunction with a grant of the continuance. Therefore, we reverse the rulings of the lower courts. Plaintiffs' motion to substitute the original affidavit is granted. The grant of the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendants—Dr. Sartor, Dr. Dona, and Restorative Home Health Care, LLC—is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM:

Weimer, J., would grant and docket.