Joseph Starns,The City of Tickfaw and the First National Insurance Company of America VS Twala Vick-Hardy, The Roth Firm, L.L.C., Kopelman Law Group, and Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotler, L.L.P.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 CA 2275 JOSEPII STARNS THE CITY OF TICKFAW AND THE FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA VERSUS TWALA VICK HARDY THE ROTH FIRM L KOPELMAN LAW C GROUP PC AND HERMAN HERMAN KATZ COTLAR L P Emamaww3wM Judgment Rendered SEP 2 12012 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISI I OF ST TAMMANY STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 2011 DIVISION F 12338 THE HONORABLE MARTIN E COADY JUDGE COUNSEL OF RECORD J Scott Thomas Attorney for PlaintiffAppellee Baton Rouge Louisiana Joseph Starns Christopher Moody Hammond Louisiana Attorney for PlaintiffAppellee Charles R Capdeville Attorney for PlaintiffAppellee Metairie Louisiana The First National Insurance The City of Tickfaw Company of America Morris W Reed Jr New Orleans Louisiana Attorney for DefendantAppellant Twala Vick Hardy Jacques F Bezou Jacques F Bezou Jr Attorneys for Defendants Appellees The Roth Law Firm L C Kopelman Law Group PC and Covington Louisiana Herman Herman Katz P L BEFORE KUHN PET AND McDONALD JJ nGREW 2 Cotlar McDONALD I Appellant in this matter challenges a judgment granting a Motion to Enforce Settlement and ordering the funds deposited with the St Tammany Parish Clerk of Court to be disbursed For the following reasons the appeal is dismissed A Motion to Enforce Settlement was filed granted and judgment signed on June 21 2011 The notice of judgment and certified copy of the judgment was mailed to Mrs Vick Hardy attorney of record on June 24 2011 s A Motion for New Trial was filed by facsimile June 29 2011 Louisiana Revised Statutes 1 provides in pertinent part 850 3 A Any paper in a civil action may be filed with the court by facsimile transmission All clerks of court shall make available for their use equipment to accommodate facsimile filing in civil actions Filing shall be deemed complete at the time that the facsimile transmission is received and a receipt of transmission has been transmitted to the sender by the clerk of court The facsimile when filed has the same force and effect as the original B Within five days exclusive of legal holidays after the clerk of court has received the transmission the party filing the document shall forward the following to the clerk 1 The original signed document 2 The applicable filing fee if any 3 A transmission fee of five dollars C If the party fails to comply with the requirements of Subsection B the facsimile filing shall have no force or effect The various district courts may provide by court rule for other matters related to filings by facsimile transmission Mrs Vick Hardy filings were timely made by facsimile on June 29 2011 s The original document certified as a true copy by the clerk was stamped as received and filed into the record on July 21 2011 Plaintiffs argue and we agree that the above referenced law requires that the original signed document be forwarded to the clerk within five days exclusive of holidays There was no evidence that the original of the document filed by facsimile was forwarded to the clerk within five days 3 In fact the record establishes that Mrs VickHardy s attorney also submitted as evidence on July 21 201 a notarized document addressed To 1 Wbom it May Concern that was faxed presumably to Mrs VickHardy or to her attorney on July 11 2011 Because that filing was sent on July 11 2011 at 5 41 M P and filed along with the original document on July 21 2011 the documents could not possibly have been forwarded to the clerk of court within five days ofthe June 29 2011 facsimile filing date as the law requires Therefore in accordance with La R C the facsimile filing shall have no force or effect 850 13 S The delay for filing for a devolutive appeal as provided in La Code Civ P art 2087 is sixty days of The expiration ofthe delay for applying for a new 1 A trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict as provided by Article 1974 and Article 181 l if no application has been filed timely Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1974 provides The delay for applying for a new trial shall be seven days exclusive of legal holidays The delay for applying for a new trial commences to run on the day after the clerk has mailed or the sheriff has served the notice of judgment as required by Article 1913 Since the Motion for a New Trial was of no force and effect delays for filing an appeal began to run seven days from June 24 2012 The Petition for Appeal and Designation of Record was not filed until September 9 2011 significantly beyond the time allowed by law Therefore the appeal is dismissed as untimely APPEAL DISMISSED El
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.
