MICHELLE BENNETT WHITE VERSUS JOSEPH EDWARD WHITE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 14-379 MICHELLE BENNETT WHITE VERSUS JOSEPH EDWARD WHITE ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 248,890 HONORABLE GEORGE CLARENCE METOYER, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE ********** J. DAVID PAINTER JUDGE ********** Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, J. David Painter, and John E. Conery, Judges. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED. Camille Joseph Giordano Giordano & Giordano Post Office Box 12190 Alexandria, LA 71315 (318) 445-5567 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Joseph Edward White Susan Ford Fiser Attorney at Law Post Office Box 12424 Alexandria, LA 71315-2424 (318) 442-8899 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Michelle Bennett White David Cleveland Hesser Attorney at Law 2820 Jackson St. Alexandria, LA 71301 (318) 542-4102 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Joseph Edward White PAINTER, Judge. Defendant/Appellee, Joseph Edward White, filed a motion to dismiss appeal on May 1, 2014, alleging that Plaintiff/Appellant, Michelle Bennett White, has not timely filed her appellate brief pursuant to Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2 12.7. For the reasons given herein, we deny the motion to dismiss. By judgment dated February 10, 2014, Joseph was designated the primary custodial parent of his minor children and Michelle was granted visitation privileges. Michelle filed an appeal which was lodged with this court on April 7, 2014. Joseph has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that Michelle failed to timely file her appellate brief with this court. Michelle did not file her brief as required by Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2 12.7. However, on April 25, 2014, pursuant to Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2 8.6, this court mailed notice to Michelle that she has an additional thirty days to file her brief. Pursuant to said notice, Michelle s brief is now due on May 25, 2014. Accordingly, Joseph s motion to dismiss, which was filed on May 1, 2014, is premature and is hereby denied. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED. THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.
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.
