9029 Jefferson Highway, L.L.C. v. S & D Roofing, L.L.C., 187 So. 3d 522

Plaintiff 9029 Jefferson Highway, L.L.C. obtained a default judgment against S & D Roofing, L.L.C. for $15,000 in April 2010 for alleged breach of a roofing contract.
Defendant filed a Motion for New Trial in August 2011, claiming defective notice of the default judgment and legal error; at a December 2011 hearing the trial court found notice defective and continued the matter.
A written judgment signed in February 2012 incorrectly stated the Motion for New Trial was dismissed as premature; defendant was later personally served with the default judgment.
This court previously reversed a denial of the Motion for New Trial as untimely, holding the seven-day filing period did not run until service of judgment, and remanded for consideration on the merits (9029 Jefferson Highway, L.L.C. v. S & D Roofing, L.L.C.).
On remand the trial court denied the Motion for New Trial at a hearing on April 16, 2015 and signed written judgment April 22, 2015; defendant filed a suspensive appeal but appealed from the denial of the motion rather than the underlying default judgment.
The appellate court concluded the denial of a motion for new trial is an interlocutory order not immediately appealable and dismissed the appeal without prejudice, while preserving defendant’s right to seek supervisory writs and treating the appeal as a notice of intent to file a writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of a motion for new trial is immediately appealable	Implicitly: appeal proper to review denial	Denied that appeal is from final judgment; sought review of new-trial denial	Denial of new trial is interlocutory and not immediately appealable; appeal dismissed
Whether the appellate court should treat an improperly framed appeal as seeking review of the underlying judgment on the merits	Plaintiff did not argue this	Defendant relied on prior remand and sought appellate review of new-trial denial	Court found defendant clearly sought review of the denial, not the underlying judgment, so appeal was improper
Whether the court should construe pleadings to do substantial justice and favor appeals	N/A	Argued appeal should be sustained where possible under La. C.C.P. art. 865	Court noted preference for sustaining appeals but found jurisdiction lacking here
Whether the court should convert the appeal into a writ application or preserve writ rights	N/A	Requested review via appeal	Court dismissed appeal without prejudice but granted 30 days to file writ application and construed appeal as notice of intent to seek writ

Burns v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., 165 So.3d 147 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (denial of motion for new trial is interlocutory and not immediately appealable)
Pignona v. Farber, 128 So.3d 390 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (pleadings construed to do substantial justice; appeals favored)
9029 Jefferson Highway, L.L.C. v. S & D Roofing, L.L.C., 136 So.3d 313 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (motion for new trial filed before service of judgment was not premature and filing period began upon service)
Bank of N.Y. v. Holden, 182 So.3d 1206 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2015) (court does not typically convert appeals into writ applications)
State v. Donaldson, 130 So.3d 394 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (same)