Full text
Ronata Llopis v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (in its capacity as uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier) and USAA Casualty Insurance Company (in its capacity as uninsured/underinsured motorist carrier)
RONATA LLOPIS NO. 2024 CW 0015 VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY IN ITS CAPACITY AS UNINSURED/ UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER) AND USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY IN ITS CAPACITY AS UNINSURED/ UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CARRIER) MARCH 5, 2024
In Re: Ronata Llopis, applying for writs, 22nd supervisory Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 202211387.
BEFORE: MCCLENDON, CHUTZ, HESTER, MILLER, AND STROMBERG, JJ.
WRIT DENIED. In response to, and less than a week after, an ex parte order Plaintiff leave file its granting to First Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages, USAA filed a Motion to Object and Alternative Motion to Strike First Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages." A motion to strike is an appropriate vehicle to address an " insufficient demand." See La. Code Civ. P. art. 964. The demand was insufficient insofar as it was filed without the consent of the opposing party and without the contradictory motion required by La. Code Civ. P. art. 1155, and a motion to is strike the appropriate vehicle to the See challenge filing. Roberts v.
Murphy Oil Corp., 577 So. 2d 308, 313 ( La. App. 4th Cir.), writs denied, 580 So. 2d 670, 673 ( La. 1991); see also Succession ion of Serpas, 2016- 257, 2016- 258, 2016- 259 ( La. 5th Cir. App. 9/ 28/ 16), 2016 WL 5404415, * 4- 5 ( unpublished). A decision as to whether to grant leave to supplement a is pleading within the sound discretion of the trial court and shall not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. Palowsky v. Cork, 2019- 0148 La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 20/ 20), 304 So. 3d 867, 875. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering its ex parte order and denying Plaintiff leave to file its First Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages.
WRC SMM TPS
McClendon, J., dissents. A motion to strike is a means of
cleaning up the pleadings, not a means of eliminating causes of action or substantive allegations. Cole v. Cole, 2018- 0523 ( La. App. lst Cir. 9/ 21/ 18) , 264 So. 3d 537, 544. Motions to strike
are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted. Id. The proper procedural vehicle to seek review of the trial court' s interlocutory ruling granting Plaintiff leave of court to file an amended and supplemental petition was an application for supervisory writ. See Waiters v. deVille, 2020- 0556 ( La. App.
NO. 2024 CW 0015
PAGE 2 OF 2
4th Cir. 12/ 30/ 20) , 365 So. 3d 544, writ denied, 2021- 00283 ( La. 4/ 13/ 21), 313 So. 3d 1249; see also Allstate Ins. Co. V.
Mohamadian, 2009- 1126 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 17/ 10), 35 So. 3d 1118, 1120. Accordingly, I would deny USAA' s motion to strike, as it is procedurally improper and USAA failed to file a timely writ application to seek review of the trial court' s ruling granting Plaintiff leave of court to file an amended and
supplemental petition.
Hester, J., dissents and would grant the writ application.