Delisyee Daggs Jupiter VS Kendrick D. Jupiter

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2015 CU 0376 AND 2015 CW 0678 KENDRICK D. JUPITER VERSUS DELISYEE DAGGS JUPITER Judgment Rendered: JUN 0 5 2015 On Appeal from The 17th Judicial District Court, Parish ofLafourche, State ofLouisiana Trial Court No.102952 The Honorable Jerome J. Barbera, III, Judge Presiding Kendrick D. Jupiter Defendant/ Appellant, Baton Rouge, Louisiana In Proper Person Felix J. Stemfels Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee, Napoleonville, Louisiana D~lisyee Daggs Jupiter (Morris) BEFORE: McDONALD, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ. CRAIN,J. In this domestic proceeding, Kendrick D. Jupiter appeals a February 13, 2015 judgment dismissing his motion to recuse Judge Jerome J. Barbera. judgment specified that the motion The wa~ dismissed because Mr. Jupiter failed to appear at the hearing on the motion and because the motion was moot since Judge Barbera retired on December 31, 2014. Mr. Jupiter contends that the ruling violated his right to due process and equal protection of law. JURISDICTION A threshold inquiry in any case is whether there is a basis for jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties, and to grant the relief to which they are entitled. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1. We have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the issue is not raised by the litigants. Swanson v. Department ofPublic Safety and Corrections, 01-1066 La. App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02), 837 So. 2d 634, 636. This court's appellate jurisdiction extends to final judgments. See La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 2083A. A final judgment determines the merits of a controversy, in whole or in part. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841. In contrast, an interlocutory judgment does not determine the merits, but decides only preliminary matters in the course of an action. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841. An interlocutory judgment is appealable only when expressly provided by law. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 2083C. A judgment dismissing or denying a motion to recuse a trial judge is an interlocutory judgment. See La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841; Augman v. City of Morgan City, 04-1746 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/23/05), 914 So. 2d 583, 585; Tatum v. New Orleans Aviation Bd., 10-1218 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 1/26111), 2011 WL9159673, p.2; Tatum v. New Orleans Aviation Bd., 08-0831 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 2/18/09), 2 2009WL8688806, p.1. Further, no provision of law expressly provides for its appeal. This court has the discretion to convert appeals to applications for supervisory writs or to order the trial court to set a return date pursuant to a timely filed motion for appeal. See Stelluto v. Stelluto, 05-0074 ( La. 6/29/05), 914 So. 2d 34, 39; Jupiter v. Jupiter, 14-1421 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3/6/15), __ So. 3d _, _, 2015WL995404, p.3. We decline to do so here, where Mr. Jupiter seeks review of the judgment dismissing his motion to recuse Judge Barbera. An issue is moot when a judgment or decree has been deprived of practical significance or made abstract or purely academic. In re E.W., 09-1589 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/7/10), 38 So. 3d 1033, 1037. As noted in the judgment itself, Judge Barbera is now retired and is no longer presiding over this case. Clearly, the issues raised in the motion to recuse Judge Barbera are now moot and do not present a justiciable controversy over which this court could exercise jurisdiction. 1 CONCLUSION This court lacks jurisdiction to review the February 13, 2015 judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is.dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED; WRIT DENIED. After this appeal was taken, Mr. Jupiter filed an application for supervisory writs, 2015CW0678, challenging the trial court's denial of a motion to supplement this appellate record. The writ application was referred to this panel. Considering our decision herein, the writ application is denied as moot. 3

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.