Isaiah Gaines and Alvin Gaines VS Paul Lemoine, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, and Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2018 CA 0490 ISAIAH GAINES AND ALVIN GAINES VERSUS PAUL LEMOINE, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY DATE OF JUDGMENT: - EC 2 12018 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 22514, DIVISION A, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE KATHRYN E. JONES, JUDGE Chad A. Aguillard Counsel for Plaintiffs -Appellants New Roads, Louisiana Isaiah Gaines and Alvin Gaines Willie G. Johnson, Jr. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Carey M. Nichols Counsel for Defendants -Appellees Baton Rouge, Louisiana Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Paul Lemoine Christopher W. Stidham Baton Rouge, Louisiana David W. Hugenbruch San Diego, California BEFORE: PETTIGREW, WELCH, AND CHUTZ, JJ. Disposition: APPEAL DISMISSED AND REMANDED. CHUTZ, J. Plaintiffs -appellants, Alvin and Isaiah Gaines, appeal a trial court judgment in favor of defendants in this personal injury case. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 1, 2014, Alvin Gaines and his passenger, Isaiah Gaines, were involved in a vehicular accident with a vehicle driven by Paul Lemoine. accident occurred in West Feliciana Parish Highways 10 and 61, at the intersection which is controlled by a traffic light. The of Louisiana When the accident occurred, Alvin was driving southbound on Highway 61, while Paul was attempting to turn left onto Highway 10 from the northbound lane of Highway 61. Subsequently, Alvin and Isaiah filed this suit seeking damages for injuries allegedly resulting from the accident. The petition named Paul and his insurer, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, as defendants.' Following trial, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On October 31, 2017, the trial court signed written reasons for judgment in which it concluded the accident was caused by Alvin running a " red light." On that basis, the trial court found in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, indicating a judgment would be signed accordingly. The written reasons for judgment were filed on November 2, 2017, and notice thereof was given to counsel that same date. Before a written judgment was signed, plaintiffs filed a motion for appeal on January 8, 2018, stating a written judgment had been signed on November 2, 2017. incorrectly The trial court signed an order granting a devolutive appeal " from the judgment rendered in the above cause." Alvin' s UM carrier, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, was also a named Plaintiffs eventually settled their claims against Mississippi Farm Bureau and filed a defendant. motion and order to dismiss their claims, with prejudice. dismissal on November 29, 2017. 14 The trial court signed the order of After the appellate record was lodged, this court ex proprio motu issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should or should not be dismissed. The grounds for the show cause was that although the appeal purportedly was taken from a judgment rendered on November 2, 2017, the record contained no such judgment but only written reasons for judgment filed on that date. In response to the rule to show cause, the record was supplemented with a written judgment signed by the trial court on May 1, 2018, which found in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Additionally, the record was also supplemented with a motion and order for appeal filed by the plaintiffs from the May 1, 2018 judgment. Thereafter, a different panel of this court issued an interim order referring the rule to show cause to the panel to which this appeal was assigned. RULE TO SHOW CAUSE Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue. v Lafourche Realty Co., 1054, Inc., 2011- 0520 ( La. App. 1059, writ denied, 2012- 0360 ( La. 4/ 9/ 12), appellate jurisdiction extends to " final judgments." valid judgment must be " precise, definite, Parish Safe Harbor, 2002- 0045 ( Texas Gas Exploration Corp. and 1st Cir. 11/ 9/ 11), 85 So. 3d 698. 79 So. 3d This Court' s See La. C. C. P. art. 2083. A certain." Laird v. St. La. App. 1 st Cir. 12/ 20/ 02), Tammany 836 So. 2d 364, 365. Moreover, a final appealable judgment must contain decretal language, and it must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied. See Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 2001- 2016 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 27/ 02), 837 So. 2d 43, 44. These determinations should be evident from the language of the judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Laird, 836 So. 2d at 366. In other words, a judgment cannot require reference to extrinsic documents or pleadings in order to discern the court' s ruling. Vanderbrook v Coachmen Industries, Inc., 3 2001- 0809 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 10/ 02), 818 So. 2d 906, 913. Thus, a judgment that does not contain proper decretal language cannot be considered a final judgment for the purpose of an appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review such a judgment. See Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 2005- 0337 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 24/ 06), 934 So. 2d 66, 67. In this case, the May 1, 2018 judgment appealed by the plaintiffs provides that the trial court " finds, after consideration of the law and the evidence, in favor of Paul Lemoine and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company and against Alvin Gaines and Isaiah Gaines." While the judgment specified that the trial court found in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, it did not specify clearly or precisely what relief was being granted or denied, and it did not dismiss any claims or the petition. 1st Cir. 6/ 1/ 18) ( See In Interest ofLopez -Sanchez, 2018- 0318, p. 2 ( La. App. unpublished). In the absence of appropriate decretal language, the May 1, 2018 judgment is defective and cannot be considered a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Johnson, 934 So. 2d at 67. Thus, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review this matter, and the appeal must be dismissed without prejudice.2 2 We recognize that this court has discretion to convert an appeal of a non -appealable judgment to an application for supervisory writs. See Stelluto v. Stelluto, 2005- 0074 ( La. 6/ 29/ 05), 914 So. 2d Generally, appellate courts have exercised that discretion when the motion for appeal was filed within the thirty -day time period allowed for the filing of an application for supervisory writs 34, 39. under Rule 4- 3 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, and where reversal of the district court' s decision would terminate the litigation, or where clear error in the district court' s judgment, if not corrected, will create a grave injustice. However, when the jurisdictional defect lies in the non - finality of a judgment ( as opposed to an appeal from an interlocutory judgment), an appellate court will generally refrain from the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction when an adequate remedy exists by appeal. In such cases, an adequate remedy by appeal will exist upon the entry of the requisite precise, definite, and certain decretal language necessary for appellate review. This is because in the absence of proper decretal language, the judgment is defective, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits, even if we were to convert the matter to an application for supervisory writs. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to convert this appeal of a judgment that is not final for lack of decretal language to an application for supervisory writs. See Boyd Louisiana Racing, Inc. v. Bridges, 2015- 0393, pp. 2- 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 23/ 15) unpublished). 11 CONCLUSION For the reasons assigned, the appeal taken from the May 1, 2018 judgment finding in favor of defendants, Paul Lemoine and Allstate Property and Casualty plaintiffs, Alvin Gaines and Isaiah Gaines, is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. This matter is remanded to the trial Insurance Company, and against court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All costs of this matter are assessed to Alvin and Isaiah Gaines. APPEAL DISMISSED AND REMANDED. E
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
