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.

Richeson v. Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, L.L.C.

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit

March 23, 2018

LEIGH ANN SCHELL AND MCGREADY L. RICHESON
v.
KUCHLER POLK SCHELL WEINER & RICHESON, L.L.C.

          APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2017-03122, DIVISION "F" Honorable Christopher J. Bruno, Judge

          JAMES M. WILLIAMS DANIEL E. BURAS, JR. MATTHEW A. SHERMAN PATRICK R. FOLLETTE CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P. COUNSEL FOR RELATOR

          MITCHELL J. HOFFMAN MICHAEL R. ALLWEISS ALICIA BENDANA LOWE, STEIN, HOFFMAN, ALLWEISS & HAUVER, L.L.P. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS

          Court composed of Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Paula A. Brown

          Rosemary Ledet, Judge

         The Relator-Kuchler Polk Weiner, L.L.C., formerly known as Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, L.L.C. ("Kuchler")-seeks review of the trial court's March 15, 2018 ruling, denying its Motion to Continue Trial, to Reset as Jury Trial, and to Issue Jury Bond (the "Motion to Continue"). We grant the Relator's writ; reverse the trial court's ruling denying the Relator's motion to reset the matter as jury trial; remand with instructions; and deny the Relator's motion to stay as moot.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On April 3, 2017, Leigh Ann Schell and McGready Richeson ("Respondents") commenced this suit against Kuchler. On June 12, 2017, Kuchler answered the suit. In its answer, Kuchler included a jury demand, "pray[ing] for trial by jury on all issues, so triable, in this matter." At the time of filing its answer, Kuchler paid the filing fee for an answer with a jury trial.[1]

         On January 24, 2018, the trial court held a pre-trial conference to select a trial date. At the pre-trial conference, attorneys for both parties and the trial judge signed a pre-trial notice stating that "[t]he trial date in this matter is scheduled for the 21st day of May, 2018, at 9:00 A.M., before a Judge" (the "Pre-Trial Notice"). Thereafter, Kuchler's counsel called to the trial court judge's attention an alleged error in setting the matter for a judge trial. To correct the error, Kuchler filed the Motion to Continue, seeking, among other things, to have the matter reset as a jury trial.

         In its Motion to Continue, Kuchler alleged that at no time after filing its answer did Kuchler either waive its right to a jury trial or authorize any attorney to waive its right to a jury trial. In support, Kuchler presented an affidavit from Kuchler's managing partner and its authorized representative, Monique Weiner, who attested as follows:

. Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC never authorized, instructed, or directed anyone on its behalf to waive a trial by jury.
. Any scheduling of this matter for a bench trial was not the result of any explicit intent by Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC to waive or forego a jury trial in this matter.
. Defendant [Kuchler] has never and does not waive its right to a jury trial, and reiterates its demand for a jury trial as ...

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.