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.

Individual Members of Grand Lodge of State of Louisiana v. Jenkins

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit

October 26, 2018

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
v.
GUY JENKINS, MARTIN REINSCHMIDT, AND THE ELECTED BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IN RE GUY JENKINS, MARTIN REINSCHMIDT, AND THE GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

          APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE DANYELLE M. TAYLOR, DIVISION ''O'', NUMBER 785-301

          Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Hans J. Liljeberg, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

         Relators/defendants, Guy Jenkins, Martin Reinschmidt and the Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, seek this Court's emergency supervisory review of a decision by the trial court to rule on their exception of improper venue at trial. For the following reasons, we deny this writ in part, grant this writ in part, and deny relators' request for a stay.

         This matter was commenced as a summary proceeding on July 1, 2018, when plaintiffs/respondents, Frank DuTreil, Wesley Cognevich, Vernon Atkinson, Lawrence Wade, and Jason C. Bruzik, filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto. A hearing on the rule to show cause on the writ of quo warranto was initially set for July 27, 2018, but for various reasons was ultimately continued to October 26, 2018. In response to the petition, relators filed, among other things, an exception of improper venue. The present writ application indicates that the trial court deferred ruling on the exception of improper venue to the merits of the matter.[1] In their writ application, relators argue that the trial court erred in not trying and deciding the declinatory exception of improper venue prior to trial.[2]

         Summary proceeding are generally governed by La. C.C.P. arts. 2591-2596, which provide, in pertinent part:

• La. C.C.P. art. 2591: "Summary proceedings are those which are conducted with rapidity, within the delays allowed by the court, and without citation and the observance of all the formalities required in ordinary proceedings."
• La. C.C.P. art. 2592: "Summary proceedings may be used for trial or disposition of the following matters only: … (6) A … quo warranto proceeding."
• La. C.C.P. art. 2593: "A summary proceeding may be commenced by the filing of a contradictory motion or by a rule to show cause, except as otherwise provided by law. Exceptions to a contradictory motion, rule to show cause, opposition, or petition in a summary proceeding shall be filed prior to the time assigned for, and shall be disposed of at, the trial. An answer is not required, except as otherwise provided by law. No responsive pleadings to an exception are permitted."
• La. C.C.P. art. 2595: "Upon reasonable notice a summary proceeding may be tried in open court or in chambers, in term or in vacation; and shall be tried by preference over ordinary proceedings, and without a jury, except as otherwise provided by law. The court shall render its decision as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the trial of a summary proceeding and, whenever practicable, without taking the matter under advisement."
• La. C.C.P. art. 2596: "The rules governing ordinary proceedings are applicable to summary proceedings, except as otherwise provided by law."

         Under La. C.C.P. art. 2593, it is clear that exceptions to a petition in a summary proceeding, such as the current exception of improper venue, shall be disposed of at trial. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's decision to defer ruling on the exception of improper venue to the merits of the matter. Accordingly, this writ application is denied in that regard. However, this writ is granted to the extent that the trial court is ordered to rule on the exception of improper venue prior to ruling on the merits of the matter. See Drew Dev. Co. v. Hibernia Nat 'l Bank, 442 So.2d 1229 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1983).

         For the foregoing reasons, this writ application is denied in part and granted in part. Further, relators' request for a stay is denied.

         WRIT DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED ...


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.