ALINE WATERMAN VERSUS ACADIANA MALL CMBS, LLC D/B/A/ THE MALL OF ACADIANA, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 18-316 ALINE WATERMAN VERSUS ACADIANA MALL CMBS, LLC D/B/A THE MALL OF ACADIANA, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20133079 HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** JOHN E. CONERY JUDGE ********** Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, John E. Conery and Van H. Kyzar, Judges. APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED. Larry Lane Roy Elizabeth C. Austin Brown Sims, P.C. 600 Jefferson St., Suite 800 Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 484-1240 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Acadiana Mall CMBS, LLC CBL and Associates Management, Inc. Nickles and Dimes, Incorporated Jeremy L. Pichon Alex A. Lauricella Didriksen, Saucier, Woods & Pichon 3114 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 586-1600 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Aline Waterman Raymond A. Brown 2200 Veterans Boulevard, Suite 116 E Kenner, LA 70062 (504)273-1510 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Aline Waterman CONERY, Judge. Upon the lodging of the record in this appeal, this court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the Plaintiff-Appellant, Aline Waterman, to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as premature, citing Egle v. Egle, 05-531 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/8/06), 923 So.2d 780. Plaintiff timely filed a response to this court’s rule. For the reasons assigned, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand the case. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees, Acadiana Mall CMBS, LLC; CBL & Associates Management, Inc.; Nickels and Dimes, Inc.; and ABC Insurance Companies, dismissing all claims against the Defendants by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff timely filed a motion for new trial. No hearing was held on the motion. Instead, on the order filed with the motion for new trial asking that the trial court set the motion for hearing, the trial court struck through the order language and handwrote, “Denied for reasons stated in this Court’s ruling.” The record is devoid of any “reasons” issued by the trial court regarding the motion for new trial, the only reasons appearing of record being those rendered with reference to the final judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims. In Egle, 923 So.2d 780, this court held that an appeal is premature when taken before a contradictory hearing at which a ruling is entered on all timely-filed postjudgment motions or before a written judgment has been rendered on all such motions. Specifically, this court noted that the trial court’s denial of an order to set such postjudgment motions for hearing does not suffice to rule on the merits of the motions. Therefore, this court dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter for a disposition of the post-judgment motions. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Egle, we likewise dismiss this appeal without prejudice, at Plaintiff’s cost, for having been filed prematurely, and remand the matter to the trial court for a ruling on the motion for new trial. APPEAL DISMISSSED; CASE REMANDED. THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal. 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.
