WALTER GABRIEL, JR. AND CHRISTINE LEWIS VERSUS RITCHIE REAL ESTATE, LLC, ET AL.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT P.O. Box 16577 Lake Charles LA 70616 (337) 433-9403 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Charles Stovall Weems, III Gold, Weems, Bruser, el al P. O. Box 6118 Alexandria LA 71307-6118 Martha R. Crenshaw Attorney at Law 2001 MacArthur Drive Alexandria LA 71309 REHEARING ACTION: November 22, 2017 Docket Number: 17-468 CW consolidated with 17-528 CW & 17-549 CW WALTER GABRIEL, JR. AND CHRISTINE LEWIS VERSUS RITCHIE REAL ESTATE, LLC, ET AL. Writ Application from Rapides Parish Case No. 257141 BEFORE JUDGES: Hon. Phyllis M. Keaty Hon. Van H. Kyzar Hon. Candyce G. Perret As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the ruling on the application for rehearing filed by Walter Gabriel, Jr. and Christine Lewis is: MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED. In support of their motion for rehearing, Plainitffs assert that the original petition was fax-filed on October 18, 2016, thus making the original petition timely filed. However, we find that even if the original petition were timely filed, our original decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice Act (LUTPA), La.R.S. 51:1401, et seq., remains unchanged. In that regard, we reiterate our finding that because the amended petition wherein Plaintiffs raise the LUPTA claim was filed after the peremptive period under La.R.S. 51:1409(E) had expired, the relation back concept set forth in La.Code Civ.P. art. 1153 cannot be applied to render the LUPTA claim timely. See Robin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 02-689 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/5/03), 844 So.2d 41, writ denied, 03-1818 (La. 10/17/03), 855 So.2d 763. For these reasons, we hereby deny Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. cc: Randall Brian Keiser, Counsel for the Applicant Jeremy C. Cedars, Counsel for the Applicant Richard Alan Rozanski, Counsel for the Respondent Connor Junkin, Counsel for the Respondent J. Ryan Pierret, Counsel for the Respondent Marc W. Judice, Counsel for the Respondent

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.