MYRA MAUDRA MUNSTER, CHRISTEN COOK AND JOHN COOK Vs. BILL WATSON FORD, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND DON BOHN FORD, INC.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MYRA MAUDRA MUNSTER, CHRISTEN COOK AND JOHN COOK * NO. 2007-CA-0294 * COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS * FOURTH CIRCUIT BILL WATSON FORD, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND DON BOHN FORD, INC. * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* TOBIAS, J., CONCURS AND ASSIGNS REASONS. I respectfully concur in order to assign additional reasons in support of the majority’s decision. Even assuming that the trial court was correct and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Paulstra CRC Corporation as a party defendant because the late addition of it as a party violated a pretrial order, nothing prevented the plaintiffs/appellants from filing a separate suit against Paulstra and thereafter, as mandated by rules of court, moving for consolidation of the suits for trial. (Judicial economy would warrant such a result.) Whether Paulstra is a joint or solidary obligor, the filing of suit against the remaining defendants interrupted prescription against all potential defendants. See La. C.C. arts. 1793 and 2324C. The plaintiffs merely chose the more direct method: filing a supplemental and amending petition adding Paulstra. The trial court by its 2005 order granted the supplementation and amendment. This is not a unique case. Substantially similar things occurred in Dubuclet v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 94-0708 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/15/94), 647 So.2d 1344.
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.
