275 So. 3d 278
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Hernandez sued multiple defendants after a 2014 workplace injury; his petition was amended to add SPX Cooling, Xcel Erectors, and James Meidl.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment (Feb. 22, 2017) dismissing negligence claims against SPX/Xcel/Meidl and sustained an exception of no cause of action as to intentional torts while allowing Hernandez 30 days to amend.
- Hernandez appealed the 2017 judgment; this court dismissed that appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the judgment was a non-certified partial final judgment.
- While that appeal was pending, the trial court (Aug. 29, 2017) attempted to dismiss Hernandez’s intentional tort claims for failure to amend; the appellate court finds that order null because the trial court was divested of jurisdiction after the appeal was taken.
- Hernandez filed an “Amended Final Judgment” (Apr. 18, 2018) purporting to certify the entire judgment as final; appellate court reviews de novo and finds the certification improper and therefore dismisses the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Final Judgment is appealable (proper final certification under La. C.C.P. art. 1915) | Certification was proper; appeals right to review errors in summary judgment and statutory-employee ruling | Certification improper because the judgment left intentional-tort claims amendable and thus was not final | Certification improper; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court validly dismissed intentional-tort claims during the pendency of the 2017 appeal | Plaintiff contends trial court could act on remaining issues | Defendants argued trial court retained jurisdiction under art. 1915(C) to adjudicate remaining issues | Trial court was divested of jurisdiction once the appeal was taken; the Aug. 29, 2017 dismissal is null |
| Whether the partial summary judgment (negligence claims) could be immediately appealed alone | Hernandez sought review of both negligence and intentional-tort rulings | Defendants argued appeal was timely and final; plaintiff’s certification cured prior defects | The partial summary judgment could not be certified final here because related claims remained and no no-just-reason-for-delay shown |
| Prescription exception raised on appeal | Hernandez did not pursue remand to try prescription below | Defendants raised prescription in appellate pleadings | Appellate court pretermitted prescription objection and declined to reach it because of lack of appellate jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. Formosa Plastics Corp. of Louisiana, 813 So.2d 335 (La. 2002) (trial court divested only as to matters appealed)
- Union Planters Bank, N.A. v. City of Gonzales, 923 So.2d 790 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (orders entered while appeal pending are null)
- R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 894 So.2d 1113 (La. 2005) (factors for certifying partial judgment final under art. 1915)
- Welch v. Crown-Zellerbach Corp., 365 So.2d 586 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1978) (trial court retains jurisdiction over matters not reviewable on appeal of partial judgment)