Mahoney V. Aries Marine Corporation, et al., 2026 WL 3257440 (La. 1st Cir.App., Oct. 29. 2026)[1]
By Arthur A. Crais, Jr., Adjunct Professor
This Jones Act Suit was filed in state court on Oct. 9, 2019. Mr. Mahoney alleged he was injured while in the employ of Aries Marine while on a vessel White Fleet Marine, LLC. (WFM). The defendants filed exceptions of improper vcnue. A hearing was set on the September 28, 2020. Though the parties were given ten days to supplement the record and file additional memoranda, the court never ruled on the pending exceptions.[2]
Counsel for the seaman corresponded with opposing counsel to schedule a conference to discuss outstanding discovery. Though counsel for WFM proposed a date, no conference was ever held.[3] Thereafter, defense counsel filed a joint ex parte Motion to Dismiss the suit pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 561 asserting the suit was abandoned.[4]
The trial court initially granted the Motion to Dismiss as to Aries Marine (albeit without prejudice) and denied it as to WFM on April 28, 2025. Mr. Mahoney then filed for rehearing at which time the trial judge reversed himself and vacated the judgment dismissing the suit as to Aries Marine. Aries timely filed for supervisory writs.[5] The writ application was joined with the appeal WFM took of the trial court’s judgment of April 28, 2025 denying its Motion to Dismiss the suit as abandoned.[6]
First the appeal panel[7] addressed whether it had jurisdiction and determined that the denial of the exception is a “nonappealable interlocutory judgment because it determines a preliminary matter and not the merits of the action.’[8] Though the appellate court may in its discretion convert an appeal to a supervisory writ application,[9] the majority of the panel declined to do so as they determined that the trial court did not err when it denying the exception. “We find Mahoney's May 17, 2023 email to Aries Marine and WFM requesting discovery responses and attempting to schedule a Rule 10.1 conference constituted a step in the prosecution of Mahoney's case.”[10] In addition, the majority blamed the trial court for the delay stating: “the delay was attributable to the trial court, not Mahoney, and abandonment did not accrue.”[11]
Judge Theriot, joined by Judge Haggerty, dissented and criticized the majority for relying on a case which was decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court[12] as that opinion predates the present version of La. District Court Rule 10.1.[13] Though counsel requested a conference, he failed to follow up and schedule one or respond the defense counsel’s request for alternate times.[14]
In addition, the dissent criticizes the majority’s decision that the trial court’s failure to rule on a pending exception interrupted the period of abandonment.[15] First, the dissent challenged the claim by plaintiff’s counsel that the delay was beyond his control. Counsel’s claim that “he ‘did not find it appropriate to insist on the court's determination of the defendants’ [venue exceptions],’”[16] did not persuade the dissent. In addition, the defense took no steps to advance the case either.[17]
A copy of the only available opinion is attached.
[1] This Opinion Has Not Been Released For Publication In The Permanent Law Reports. Until Released, It Is Subject To Revision Or Withdrawal.
[2] 2026 WL 3257440 at *1.
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at *2.
[6] Id. at *1.
[7] Judges Theriot, Greene, Stromberg, Balfour, And Haggerty.
[8] Id. at *2,
[9] Id. at *3.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Department of Transportation and Development v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C., 2011-0912 (La. 12/6/11), 79 So.3d 978
[13] Id at *4.
[14] Id. at *5.
[15] Id. at *6.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. at *7.
