Writ application denied.
The issue in this case is whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court and granting defendants leave of court to file reconventional demands. I find it did.
In this case, defendants sought leave to assert reconventional demands after more than four years of litigation, more than seven months after the trial courts pre-trial order, and more than two months after the parties had filed their witness and exhibit lists and exchanged final expert reports. The trial court denied defendants’ motion for leave to file said reconventional demands, finding “a lack of good cause” for non-compliance with the courts pre-trial order.
There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. It is not a matter of lack of prejudice. The trial court was well within its discretion to control the subsequent course of action in this case. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1551(B). The court of appeal substituted its discretion for that of the trial court. That action by the appellate court does not establish an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The majoritys denial of this writ waters down, if not eviscerates, the authority of the trial court to control a case on its docket and renders its pre-trial order unenforceable.
I would grant this writ, reverse the court of appeal judgment, and reinstate the trial courts denial of defendants’ motion for leave to file reconventional demands.
Hughes, J., would grant.
Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., would grant.