63 So. 3d 220
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Josephs sued Ratcliff and Shelter, and later added Gunn & York and State Farm after dismissing Allstate.
- Shelter and State Farm cross-moved for summary judgment on primary vs. excess coverage.
- April 27, 2010 the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of State Farm; Shelter’s motion was denied.
- Judgment was not final or designated a final judgment; no express no-just-delay finding.
- After settlement and dismissal of claims, Shelter sought review of the April 27, 2010 judgment.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and held the case moot due to settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the April 27, 2010 partial summary judgment final and appealable? | Shelter: judgment was final because it resolved primary coverage issue. | State Farm: judgment was interlocutory and not final without designation. | Not final or appealable under Article 1915 B; jurisdiction lacking. |
| Does the absence of a final designation defeat appellate review of a partial judgment? | Shelter: the judgment effectively ended the dispute with respect to primary coverage. | State Farm: no final designation; not a final judgment. | LSA-C.C.P. art. 1915 B required final designation; not satisfied here. |
| Did settlement moot the dispute and foreclose appellate review? | Settlement did not affect the issue on appeal because judgment was interlocutory. | Settlement extinguished the claims; no live controversy remains. | Case moot; no justiciable controversy remains; appeal dismissed. |
| May the court exercise supervisory jurisdiction to review the interlocutory ruling after settlement? | Shelter sought supervisory relief given potential clarification of law. | Post-settlement factors and mootness negate supervisory review. | No supervisory review; merits do not meet Herlitz criteria. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Willis-Knighton Pierremont, 56 So. 3d 242 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2010) (regular panel may review writ panel rulings for error when appropriate)
- Trans Louisiana Gas Co. v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 693 So. 2d 893 (La. 1997) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; can be raised at any time)
- Dodson v. Community Blood Center of Louisiana, Inc., 633 So. 2d 252 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1993) (jurisdiction issues may be raised at any stage)
- de Nunez v. Bartels, 727 So. 2d 463 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1998) (court may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
- Latiolais v. Jackson, 979 So. 2d 489 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (final judgment must be precise, definite, certain)
- Council of City of New Orleans v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 953 So. 2d 798 (La. 2007) (mootness doctrine; settlement can render issues non-justiciable)
- St. Charles Parish School Bd. v. GAF Corp., 512 So. 2d 1165 (La. 1987) (admonition against advisory opinions; focus on live controversies)
- Herlitz Const. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So. 2d 878 (La. 1981) (Herltiz factors for supervisory relief; not applicable when litigation is settled)