24, 2009 until March 1, 2013 when there were no steps taken in either the prosecution or defense of this matter.” We disagree. In resolving the issue presented on appeal, the difference between an executory and an ordinary proceeding cannot be ignored. As the Lender’s counsel pointed out at oral argument before this court, once the trial court renders an order of seizure and sale, all of the activities in the executory proceeding occur not in the trial court — as in an ordinary proceeding — but in the sheriffs office. Moreover, this court has recognized that a creditor’s actions that are necessary to proceed with an executory proceeding can constitute a “step” under La. C.C.P. art. 561. Freedlander, Inc., The Mortgage People v. Certain, 628 So.2d 677, 678-79 (La.App. 4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) Although there is no exception in La. C.C.P.
holding that since a request for issuance of a writ of seizure is required in executory proceedings lacode civ proc ann art 2638 west 1961 we will consider freedlanders request a step in prosecution holding that an officers request for a citizens identification by itself did not amount to a seizure recognizing two aspects to assertion of fifth amendment rights 1 a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand request was made for an attorney and 2 the request was for assistance with a custodial interrogation not for subsequent hearings or proceedings holding that the filed rate doctrine barred request for damages but did not preclude request for injunction and civil penalties holding that judicial review of the boards denial of a request for remission of a fine or forfeiture is limited to those situations where the board has failed to consider a request that it exercise its discretion or where there is justification for the courts exercising its equitable jurisdiction