226 So. 3d 514
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Bayer and Kelley) sued after a gas-line cut and explosion during work by Cimarron Underground employees damaged their home on April 23, 2014.
- Defendants included Cimarron Underground, Entergy entities, and Starr Indemnity; plaintiffs alleged negligence and sought damages.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; at an August 12, 2016 hearing the trial court orally granted defendants’ motion.
- The trial court’s written judgment dated August 15, 2016 mistakenly stated that the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied and misidentified the prevailing party.
- On September 26, 2016 the trial court vacated the August 15 judgment and signed an amended judgment stating only that “Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED,” without identifying which defendants or specifying relief.
- Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial was denied (Dec. 6, 2016); plaintiffs appealed from that denial, triggering this appellate review of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction based on a final, appealable judgment | The trial court entered a final judgment granting summary judgment (per amended judgment) and plaintiffs’ appeal of the denial of new trial should proceed | Defendants rely on the amended judgment granting summary judgment as dispositive | The amended September 26 judgment is not a valid final judgment because it fails to identify the specific defendants in whose favor it is granted and fails to state the specific relief; appellate jurisdiction is lacking |
| Whether the amended judgment’s decretal language is sufficiently definite | The amended judgment is adequate to show the trial court’s intent to grant defendants’ motion | The amended judgment’s general phrasing is sufficient to dispose of claims against defendants | The decree must name parties and the relief; the amended judgment’s indeterminate language renders it non-final and non-appealable |
| Whether the court should convert the defective appeal into a writ application | Plaintiffs implicitly ask for appellate review now despite defects | Defendants implicitly prefer final-judgment appeal procedure | Court declines to exercise supervisory writ jurisdiction given the indeterminate disposition; directs trial court to enter a proper final judgment |
| Whether the denial of the motion for new trial is independently appealable here | Plaintiffs appealed the denial of new trial | Defendants contend appeal should await a valid final judgment | Denial of new trial is interlocutory and not independently appealable absent a valid final judgment; without a final judgment, appeal dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. City of New Orleans, 190 So.3d 422 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (final judgment must contain definitive decretal language)
- Urquhart v. Spencer, 204 So.3d 1074 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (judgment must be precise, definite, and certain)
- Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Tech., Inc., 52 So.3d 909 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (quality of definiteness is essential)
- Freeman v. Phillips 66 Company, 208 So.3d 437 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (decretal language must name parties and relief)
- Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 151 So.3d 908 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (definitive decretal language required for appealability)
- Palumbo v. Shapiro, 81 So.3d 923 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (three components of decretal language explained)
- In re Medical Review Panel of Williams v. EMSA Louisiana, Inc., 203 So.3d 419 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (general grant of motion without specifics is defective)
- Contreras v. Vesper, 202 So.3d 1186 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (same)
Outcome: Appeal dismissed without prejudice for lack of a valid final judgment; case remanded for entry of a definitive final judgment.