Opinion
23-C-390
10-02-2023
PRAVITA PRASAD NAIR v. PASKARAN A. "PAZ" NAIR IN RE PRAVITA NAIR
Applying for Supervisory Writ from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, Directed to the Honorable Donald L. Foret, Division "H", Number 774-053
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
WRIT GRANTED; EXCEPTION RULING REVERSED; REMANDED
Relator, Pravita Nair, seeks review of the trial court's July 11, 2023 ruling that sustained an exception of no cause of action filed by Respondent, Paskaran A. "Paz" Nair.
On June 22, 2023, Paskaran filed a pleading entitled, "Peremptory Exceptions of No Cause of Action and Motion to Dismiss with Incorporated Memorandum." In the pleading, Paskaran argued that Pravita's April 20, 2023 objection to the Special Master's proces verbal was untimely pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4165(C). He asserted that the objection was filed outside of the ten-day time delay; thus, Pravita had no cause of action to file the objection. Paskaran sought dismissal of Pravita's objection with prejudice.
Bruce Miller was appointed as the Special Master in this matter. The report addressed child support, reimbursement claims, and contempt.
A hearing on the exception was held on July 11, 2023. In a judgment dated August 10, 2023, the trial court sustained Paskaran's exception of no cause of action by stating, "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be a judgment herein in favor of Paskaran A. 'Paz' Nair and against Pravita Prasad Nair, ordering that Paskaran A. 'Paz" Nair's Peremptory Exception of No Cause of action is hereby granted." The judgment then denied Pravita's objection to the Special Master's proces verbal.
The judgment also denied Paskaran's ex parte motion to adopt the Special Master's report and set a December 6, 2023 hearing to determine whether the Special Master's report is erroneous.
In her writ application, Pravita alleges the trial court erred in its ruling because she clearly stated a cause of action, which objected to the Special Master's proces verbal; and, the timeliness of a pleading is not a basis for an exception of no cause of action. She maintains that she timely objected to the report within 10 days of receiving the Special Master's April 10, 2023 email. As such, she contends that Paskaran's exception and motion to dismiss should have been denied by the trial court.,
Pravita alleges as an assignment of error that "the trial court erroneously found that the receipt of the 'cc' copy of the special master's cover letter addressed to the Clerk of Court requesting filing of his enclosed 'proces verbal,' constituted adequate legal service of notice of the filing of a Special Master report in order to start the 10 day deadline for the filing of objections to a special master's report in accordance with LSA 13: 4165(B)(2) ...." However, the August 10, 2023 judgment does not express the finding asserted by Pravita.
Pravita further contends that the trial court erred in "dismissing" her objection to the Special Master's report. The judgment makes no mention of dismissal of her objection.
The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. Grubbs v. Haven Custom Furnishings, Inc., 18-710 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/29/19), 274 So.3d 844, 848. For the purpose of determining the issues raised by the exception, all facts pleaded in the petition must be accepted as true. Id.
After review, we find that the trial court legally erred in sustaining Paskaran's exception of no cause of action. There was no petition before the trial court for consideration, where the factual allegations were to be accepted as true. An exception of no cause of action was not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the timeliness of Pravita's objection to the Special Master's proces verbal, and any determination of the trial court pursuant to its consideration of the exception of no cause action was procedurally improper. Accordingly, we grant the writ application, reverse the portion of the trial court's August 10, 2023 judgment that sustained Paskaran's exception of no cause of action, and remand the matter for further proceedings.
We note that, even if the exception of no cause of action were proper, the trial court's judgment fails to state the relief granted and, thus, lacks the necessary definitive decretal language. See, McLellan v. Yenni, 19-169 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/18/19), 279 So.3d 1053, 1055.
Gretna, Louisiana, this 2nd day of October, 2023.
MEJ
SMC
JJM