136 So. 3d 81
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Christy Davis, individually and on behalf of her deceased child, appealed the trial court's judgment sustaining the City's peremptory exception of no cause of action and dismissing her claims.
- No motion for new trial was filed in the trial court following the December 11, 2012 judgment; notice of signing and mailing of the judgment occurred on that date.
- La. C.C.P. art. 1974 gives seven days (exclusive of legal holidays) from the day after mailing of the notice of judgment to apply for a new trial; La. C.C.P. art. 2087 allows a devolutive appeal within 60 days after the new-trial period expires (if no new-trial motion filed).
- Davis filed her Motion for Appeal on February 26, 2013, beyond the applicable 60-day devolutive appeal period measured from the judgment mailing date.
- Davis argued she requested and received written reasons (signed January 25, 2013; mailed January 28, 2013) and that her appeal was timely as filed within 30 days of receiving those reasons; she urged tolling in limited circumstances where a judgment lacks sufficient information to determine whether to appeal.
- The appellate court concluded written reasons do not suspend statutory appeal deadlines and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal was timely under La. C.C.P. art. 2087 | Davis: time to appeal should run from written reasons; she filed within 30 days of receiving them | City: appeal period ran from mailing of judgment; no new-trial motion filed, so appeal deadline expired | Appeal untimely; court lacks jurisdiction and dismisses appeal |
| Whether issuance of written reasons tolls statutory appeal deadlines | Davis: when judgment lacks adequate information, written reasons may start the appeal clock | City: no statutory basis to suspend appellate delays for reasons | Court: no legal provision suspends appeal delays pending written reasons; reasons do not toll deadlines |
| Whether appellate court may dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction | N/A | N/A | Court may recognize lack of jurisdiction on its own and dismiss untimely appeals |
| Effect of failure to timely file devolutive appeal | Davis: (implicit) contends her filing was timely if measured from reasons | City: untimely filing deprives appellate jurisdiction | Held: untimely filing is jurisdictional bar; court cannot review merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Falkins v. Jefferson Parish School Board, 695 So.2d 1005 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (devolutive appeal timing under art. 2087)
- Martin v. Frieberger, 822 So.2d 810 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (appeal delays are jurisdictional and not interruptible)
- Parish of Jefferson v. McGee, 67 So.3d 640 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (consequence of failing to timely file devolutive appeal)
- Baton Rouge Bank & Trust Co. v. Coleman, 582 So.2d 191 (La.) (appellate courts lack power after appeal period lapses)
- Guillot v. Consolidated Freightways, 583 So.2d 113 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (timeliness requirement for appeals)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. ex rel. Robinson v. Jimenez, 726 So.2d 465 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (appellate court may dismiss untimely appeals sua sponte)
- Williams v. Atmos Energy Corp., 42 So.3d 409 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (written reasons do not suspend appeal deadlines)
- Ricks v. East Jefferson General Hospital Foundation, Inc., 783 So.2d 457 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (same)