Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Guillory v. Pelican Real Estate, Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 17, 2015

BRYON P. GUILLORY, ET UX.
v.
PELICAN REAL ESTATE, INC., ET AL

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ST. LANDRY.

For Applicant (No. 2014-C-1539): James L. Brazee, Jr., Evan Trigg Edwards, BRAZEE LAW FIRM.

For Respondent (No. 2014-C-1539): Randall Lee Guidry; Timothy Wayne Basden, BREAUD & MEYERS; Melvin Alan Eiden, RABALAIS & HEBERT; Thomas J. Eppling, STAINES & EPPLING.

For Applicant (No. 2014-C-1593): Thomas J. Eppling, Sara Peters Scurlock, STAINES & EPPLING.

For Respondent (No. 2014-C-1593): Randall Lee Guidry; James L. Brazee, Jr., BRAZEE LAW FIRM; Timothy Wayne Basden, BREAUD & MEYERS, Melvin Alan Eiden, RABALAIS & HEBERT.

For Applicant (No. 2014-C-1624): Timothy Wayne Basden, BREAUD & MEYERS.

For Respondent (No. 2014-C-1624): Randall Lee Guidry; James L. Brazee, Jr., Evan Trigg Edwards, BRAZEE LAW FIRM; Melvin Alan Eiden, RABALAIS & HEBERT; Thomas J. Eppling, STAINES & EPPLING.

OPINION

Page 876

[2014-1539 La. 1] PER CURIAM

At issue in these consolidated applications is whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the judgment of the district court which dismissed plaintiffs' suit as abandoned. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the suit is abandoned, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 25, 2008, plaintiffs, Byron and Margo Guillory, filed suit against several defendants, including Pelican Real Estate, Inc. (" Pelican" ) and its professional liability insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (" St. Paul" ).[1] Essentially, plaintiffs alleged the home they purchased contained a redhibitory defect.

On March 4, 2010, all parties participated in depositions. On December 17, 2012, [2014-1539 La. 2] plaintiffs sent written discovery directed to Pelican, but did not serve the other parties. When Pelican did not timely respond, plaintiffs scheduled a Rule 10.1 discovery conference, sending the notice of the conference to Pelican only.

On January 28, 2013, counsel for plaintiffs and Pelican participated in the Rule 10.1 discovery conference. Plaintiffs thereafter presented Pelican with a written settlement demand, but Pelican did not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.