Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit denied Ghassan Zaben’s application for supervisory writs, concluding that the requirements of Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc. were not met. Judge Hester dissented, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Zaben’s motion to modify the scheduling order and extend discovery deadlines after multiple trial continuances.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Zaben's motion to modify the scheduling order and extend discovery deadlines.
- Whether Zaben satisfied the requirements for supervisory-writ review under Herlitz Construction Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc.
Holdings
- Supervisory writ relief was denied because the requirements set forth in Herlitz Construction Co. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc. were not met.
Key quotations
“The requirements set forth in Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam) are not met.”
“Although the trial court is vested with much discretion to amend its pre-trial order, this discretion must be exercised to prevent substantial injustice to the parties who have relied on the pre-trial rulings and structured the preparation and presentation of their cases accordingly.”
Factual background
The trial court denied Ghassan Zaben's motion to modify the scheduling order and extend discovery deadlines. According to the dissent, the trial date had been continued twice without modifying the scheduling order, and the case-management schedule was issued after the ordered discovery deadline. After the writ application was filed, Mohammad Farooqi filed another motion to continue the trial and set a status conference.
Procedural history
The Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, case no. 702394, denied Zaben's motion to modify the scheduling order and extend discovery deadlines. Zaben sought supervisory review in the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit. The majority denied the writ, concluding that the requirements identified in Herlitz Construction Co. were not met. Judge Hester dissented and would have reversed and remanded for new discovery deadlines.