Batson v. Cherokee Beach and Campgrounds, Inc.
1988 WL 94400, 530 So. 2d 1128, 1988 La. LEXIS 1602 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Filing a lawsuit in a court of competent jurisdiction interrupts prescription, regardless of whether the petition initially states a cause of action, and an involuntary dismissal without prejudice allows the prescriptive period to run anew, not barring a subsequent suit on the same cause of action by res judicata.
Facts:
- William Batson was allegedly involved in a tubing accident on the Tangipahoa River on June 12, 1977.
- William Batson filed a lawsuit (Batson I) against Cherokee Beach and Campgrounds, Inc., Pat Painter, Lyn Ezell, Harry Walz, the Parish of Tangipahoa, and the State of Louisiana on June 12, 1978, seeking damages.
- The trial judge dismissed Batson I against Cherokee Beach and Campgrounds, Inc. for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court of appeal ordered the trial judge to allow William Batson a 15-day period to amend his petition.
- William Batson failed to amend his petition within the 15-day delay.
- The trial judge dismissed Batson I 'without prejudice' on September 29, 1983, due to William Batson's failure to amend.
- William Batson filed a second lawsuit (Batson II) against Cherokee Beach and Campgrounds, Inc. on February 6, 1984, seeking damages for the same tubing accident.
Procedural Posture:
- William Batson originally filed suit (Batson I) in a trial court on June 12, 1978, against Cherokee Beach and Campgrounds, Inc. et al., seeking damages.
- Cherokee filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the exception of no cause of action and dismissed Batson I against Cherokee on December 17, 1980.
- William Batson appealed this judgment of dismissal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed that the exception of no cause of action was properly sustained but ordered the trial judge to allow William Batson 15 days to amend his petition.
- William Batson failed to amend his petition within the 15-day delay.
- Cherokee filed an ex parte motion to dismiss.
- The trial court dismissed Batson I 'without prejudice' on September 29, 1983, due to William Batson's failure to amend.
- William Batson, with leave of court, filed a first amended petition and a motion for a new trial on October 5, 1983.
- Cherokee filed a motion to vacate the order granting leave to amend, as well as exceptions of no right of action, prescription, and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
- The trial court vacated its earlier order granting leave to amend, denied William Batson's motion for a new trial, and maintained Cherokee's exceptions, thus leaving intact the September 29, 1983 dismissal without prejudice.
- William Batson appealed this decision to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal without prejudice, holding that the trial judge was correct in dismissing the suit and without authority to allow the filing of the amended petition after the suit was terminated.
- William Batson filed a second lawsuit (Batson II) against Cherokee in a trial court on February 6, 1984.
- On July 17, 1985, William Batson filed a first amended petition in Batson II, which was served on Cherokee and MFA Insurance Companies (MFA).
- Cherokee and MFA filed peremptory exceptions of res judicata and prescription.
- After a hearing, the trial court sustained the exceptions of res judicata and prescription and dismissed Batson II 'with prejudice'.
- William Batson appealed this judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that William Batson's claim had prescribed and found it unnecessary to review the exception of res judicata.
- William Batson applied for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prior lawsuit, involuntarily dismissed without prejudice for failure to amend a petition, interrupt prescription for a subsequently filed lawsuit on the same cause of action, and does such a dismissal bar the subsequent lawsuit under the doctrine of res judicata?
Opinions:
Majority - marcus
No, William Batson's claim has not prescribed and is not barred by res judicata. The court held that prescription is interrupted when an obligee commences an action against an obligor in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue, irrespective of whether the petition states a cause of action. Under La.Civ.Code art. 3462 and La.Code Civ.P. art. 421, a civil action is commenced by the filing of a pleading presenting the demand, which is sufficient to interrupt prescription. This interruption continues as long as the suit is pending, unless the plaintiff abandons, voluntarily dismisses, or fails to prosecute the suit at trial (La.Civ.Code art. 3463). Since William Batson filed Batson I within the one-year prescriptive period in a competent court and did not engage in any of the disqualifying actions, prescription was interrupted and continued throughout the pendency of Batson I. When a suit is involuntarily dismissed 'without prejudice,' the prescriptive period begins to run anew, and the plaintiff has the full prescriptive period to commence a new action. Because Batson II was filed while Batson I was still pending on appeal, the interruption of prescription from Batson I was still active when Batson II was filed, meaning the claim in Batson II had not prescribed. Furthermore, a judgment of dismissal 'without prejudice' does not constitute a bar to another suit on the same cause of action (La.Code Civ.P. art. 1673), as its purpose is to enable the plaintiff to reinstitute their claim and ensure it is not barred by res judicata. Therefore, the trial court erred in sustaining the exceptions of prescription and res judicata.
Analysis:
This case clarifies crucial aspects of prescription interruption and the effect of 'without prejudice' dismissals in Louisiana. It firmly establishes that the act of filing a pleading in a competent court, even one deficient in stating a cause of action, is sufficient to interrupt prescription, overruling prior inconsistent dicta. The ruling reinforces that 'without prejudice' dismissals are not preclusive under res judicata and restart the prescriptive clock, thereby protecting plaintiffs from losing their claims due to procedural defects rather than substantive merits. This prevents undue hardship for plaintiffs who act diligently but commit technical errors, ensuring the opportunity for adjudication on the merits where appropriate.
