DR. CARROL I. FISCHER, JR. Vs. CHAD ROGERS, CUVEE, L.L.C., DECATUR HOTELS, LLC AND THE NEW ORLEANS BOARD OF TRADE, LIMITED
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DR. CARROL I. FISCHER, JR. * NO. 2019-CA-0337 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL CHAD ROGERS, CUVEE, L.L.C., DECATUR HOTELS, LLC AND THE NEW ORLEANS BOARD OF TRADE, LIMITED * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* CHASE, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS. I join in the majority’s opinion but write separately to emphasize the split in the Circuits. While I recognize that dismissal of a case because of abandonment is a harsh remedy which should be employed sparingly, there is clearly a dispute amongst the courts as to whether continuing a trial without date constitutes a step in the prosecution of the case pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 561. See, e.g., Taylor v. Dash Equipment & Supplies, Inc., 2018-0335, p. 10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 258 So.3d 909, 916 (unopposed motion to continue is not a step because it did not request the court to set a new trial date; “indefinite continuance is not intended to hasten the matter to judgment”); Bourg v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, 2012-0829, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 45, 49 (“continuing the hearing on a motion for summary judgment, without date, does not further the suit towards judgment, and thus does not qualify as a ‘step’ to interrupt the accrual of the abandonment period”); and Hutchison v. Seariver Maritime, Inc., 2009-0410, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09), 22 So.3d 989, 994 (“[a] joint motion to continue without date or indefinitely is not considered a step in the prosecution of a case, since by its very nature, an indefinite continuance is not intended to hasten the matter to judgment”).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
