N. G., ET AL.
A. C., ET AL.
FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
LAFAYETTE, NO. 2018-4581 HONORABLE KRISTIAN DENNIS EARLES,
Alan Lilley Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
Shannon Guidry Gary
W. Degan, III Degan, Blanchard & Nash COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: National Security Fire & Casualty
Anthony J. Fontana, Jr. A Professional Law Corporation
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT: N. G. N. G., obo S. N. G.
Allen Broussard Allen & Gooch, A Law Corporation COUNSEL
FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT: Teurlings Catholic High School
M. Long Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: B.
Kevin Stockstill Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: A. C.
composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R.
Cooks, and John D. Saunders, Judges.
D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
Teurlings Catholic High School (Teurlings), seeks writs from
the denial of its peremptory exceptions of no cause of action
and prescription by the Fifteenth Judicial District Court,
Parish of Lafayette, the Honorable Kristian Earles,
OF THE CASE
SNG turned eighteen years old
one month prior to the filing of this writ application. She
is the daughter of Plaintiff, NG, and SG. NG and SG were
never married, but they had joint custody of SNG. NG lived
out of state, and SNG lived with her mother and her
half-brother, AC, who is SG's child from another
relationship. AC is two years older than SNG.
November of 2015, when SNG was a freshman and AC was a junior
at Teurlings, SNG confided in a classmate that AC was
sexually molesting her and that the abuse had been ongoing
since SNG was 9 and AC was 11. That classmate reported this
allegation to a counselor, who spoke to SNG and related the
allegations to SG, but not to NG. The counselor followed up
with SNG the day after the disclosure and again on December
8, 2015. Teurlings characterizes this as "multiple"
follow-ups, during which time they received no further
complaints from SNG.
December of 2017, SNG advised the resource officer at
Teurlings that her mother had not gotten her counseling, that
AC was still living in the home with her, and that she wanted
to tell NG about the abuse. Teurlings alleges that there were
no allegations of any abuse occurring after November of 2015.
The petition states that the abuse continued until the
allegations were relayed to the counselor at Teurlings in
2015, implying that the abuse stopped at that time. However,
this does not mean that the petition lacks an allegation that
the abuse was ongoing at the time that SNG made the
disclosure to the school's counselor as argued by
meeting set up by the guidance counselor took place on
December 15, 2017, and NG was told of the alleged
abuse. A report was made by Teurlings to the
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) at that
time because Teurlings was informed that a DCFS reference
number was required in order for Teurlings to schedule
counseling for SNG. Teurlings alleges that DCFS informed
Teurlings that the situation "did not meet the policy
definition of abuse that the DCFS is responsible to
contends that SG did not notify him of the allegations, did
not get counseling for SNG, and ultimately allowed AC to live
in her home with SNG after briefly sending AC to live with
his father. In August of 2018, NG filed suit against AC,
AC's father (BC), SG, SG's homeowner's insurer
(National Security Fire and Casualty Company), and Teurlings.
The suit was brought by NG for his own alleged damages and on
behalf of SNG, who was a minor at the time suit was filed,
for her alleged damages.
filed exceptions of no cause of action and
prescription. A hearing on the exceptions was held on
March 25, 2019,  and the trial court denied both exceptions
in open court.  Teurlings timely filed a notice of intent
to seek supervisory writs, and the trial court set a return
date of April 24, 2019. This writ application, along with
three supplements, was timely filed. Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the writ application, and Teurlings filed a
reply to that opposition.
are no scheduled hearing or trial dates.
of peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and
prescription are interlocutory rulings. See J.A. Davis
Props., LLC v. Martin Operating Partnership, LP, 17-449
(La.App. 3 Cir. 6/21/17), 224 So.3d 39, and Bezou v.
Bezou, 15-1879 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/16/16), 203 So.3d 488,
writ denied, 16-1869 (La. 12/5/16), 210 So.3d 814.
"Ordinarily, an application for supervisory writ is the
appropriate vehicle for the review of an interlocutory
judgment." McGinn v. Crescent City Connection Bridge
Authority, 15-165, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/22/15), 174
So.3d 145, 148.