VALENTINE PUBLIC HEALTH CONSULTANT AND CARE CENTER LLC MD v. QADER (2026)

Writ granted. Plaintiff, Gary Valentin, MD, filed the instant suit against defendants seeking damages arising out of a failed commercial real estate transaction. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which they sought dismissal of certain defendants on the ground they were not parties to the purchase agreement. The district court granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, and on November 2, 2025, the clerk of court mailed notice of this judgment to plaintiff's counsel at 4517 North Boulevard in Baton Rouge. The mail was returned as undeliverable, and the clerk re-mailed notice to plaintiff's counsel at 38207 Seven Oak Avenue, Prairieville, Louisiana. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on December 26, 2025, arguing the motion was timely because she did not receive notice of judgment as required by La. C.C.P. art. 1913. In support of the motion, plaintiff submitted counsel's affidavit, which stated: that the clerk of court mailed notice of judgment to an incorrect and outdated address associated with counsel, which had not been used by counsel for more than twenty (20) years; that counsel did not receive timely notice of the signing of judgment due to the Clerk's use of this outdated address; that counsel did not receive actual notice of judgment until December 19, 2015; that prior to December 19, 2025, counsel had no knowledge or notice of the signing of the judgment; and that counsel's correct address is 38208 Seven Oaks Ave., Prairieville, Louisiana, 70769 and it appears in the pleadings, signature blocks, or filings, and was readily ascertainable from the record. The district court denied plaintiff's motion as untimely, and plaintiff sought supervisory review in the court of appeal.

The court of appeal denied plaintiff's writ application, citing Calogero v. USA Agencies Casualty, Ins., Co., 2019-0347 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/4/19), 286 So.3d 586. However, Calogero is inapposite to the instant matter. Calogero involved counsel who attested she had not received notice of judgment but acknowledged she had changed her address during the course of the litigation and failed to update her address on the record. Id. at 589. Additionally, the court in Calogero found the record demonstrated that counsel continued to use her old address on pleadings and in email correspondence with both opposing counsel and the law clerk for the First City Court trial judge. Id. Thus, considering the statutory requirements for filing a timely appeal and the First City Court Rules of Court,¹ the Fourth Circuit found plaintiff's appeal in Calogero untimely. Id.

In the instant case, plaintiff presented the affidavit of his attorney, which stated notice was mailed to an address that counsel had not used for more than twenty years and that counsel's correct Prairieville address appears in the pleadings, signature blocks, or filings, and was readily ascertainable from the record. Therefore, the facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from Calogero, and the court of appeal erroneously relied on that case in denying plaintiff's writ application. Furthermore, because plaintiff presented evidence that the mailing of notice was originally mailed to an incorrect address for plaintiff's counsel, and counsel did not receive notice of judgment until December 19, 2025, plaintiff's motion for new trial filed on December 26, 2025, within seven days of receiving notice of judgment was timely, and the district court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for new trial as untimely.

Accordingly, plaintiff's writ application is granted, the trial court's judgment denying plaintiff's motion for new trial is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration of the merits of plaintiff's motion for new trial.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Rule 6, § 7 of the Rules of First City Court of the City of New Orleans specifically provides:When an attorney whose name is shown on any pleadings as provided in Section 6 hereof moves his office from one location to another, he must change his address on all pleadings which he has previously filed and on which the former address has been shown. The failure to do so will bar such attorney from pleading the nonreceipt of notice mailed by the Court to his address originally shown on the pleadings.

PER CURIAM