HARRY BATT, III Vs. DR. KENNETH COHEN, GURTLER BROS. CONSULTANTS, INC. AND ASHLEY VAN DER MEULEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION HARRY BATT, III * VERSUS NO. 2015-CA-0828 * COURT OF APPEAL DR. KENNETH COHEN, GURTLER BROS. CONSULTANTS, INC. AND ASHLEY VAN DER MEULEN * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2006-07806, DIVISION M Honorable Paulette R. Irons, Judge ****** Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano ****** (Court composed of Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins) LEDET, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS Bradley S. Groce David V. Batt LOBMAN CARNAHAN BATT ANGELLE & NADER 400 Poydras Street The Texaco Center, Suite 2300 New Orleans, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT Albert J. Nicaud Jeffrey M. Siemssen NICAUD & SUNSERI, LLC 3000 18th Street Metairie, LA 70002 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES APPEAL CONVERTED TO WRIT; WRIT DENIED JANUARY 27, 2016 Dr. Harry Batt, III filed this matter as an appeal of the district court’s May 28, 2015 judgment granting Gurtler Bros. Consultants, Inc.’s and Ashley Van Der Meulen’s exception of no right of action and motion in limine. The judgment ruled only on the limited issue of Dr. Batt’s ability to recover costs of repair/replacement of the Common Elements of Doctors Row, Houma Boulevard, a Condominium, Inc., but did not dismiss all of Dr. Batt’s claims against Gurtler Bros. or Van Der Meulen. It is therefore not a final, appealable judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 1915(B) and 2083, absent any designation as a final judgment by the district court; it is an interlocutory judgment. Appeals erroneously taken on interlocutory judgments can be converted and reviewed as an application for supervisory writ, which we find appropriate in this matter. See Ordoyne v. Ordoyne, 2007–0235 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/2/08), 982 So.2d 899; Ganier v. Inglewood Homes, Inc., 2006–0642 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/8/06), 944 So.2d 753; Rule 4-3, Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal. This Court may do so only when, as here, the motion for appeal has been filed within the thirty-day time 1 period allowed for the filing of an application for supervisory writs under Rule 4-3 of the Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal. We thus exercise our discretion and convert the instant appeal of the May 28, 2015 judgment to an application for supervisory writ. The writ application is denied. APPEAL CONVERTED TO WRIT; WRIT DENIED 2

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.