206 So. 3d 1066
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Dr. Roberto Llopis, a dentist who surrendered his Louisiana license in 2006, sued the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry and individual board members after seeking relicensure in 2010.
- Prior appeals (Llopis I and Llopis II) produced interlocutory and other rulings; the case returned to trial court after remand.
- Defendants filed peremptory exceptions including res judicata and no cause of action; the trial court denied those exceptions on June 26, 2015.
- Defendants then filed a motion for new trial; the trial court granted it on September 2, 2015, reversed its prior denial, sustained the no-cause-of-action exception, and dismissed Llopis’s claims.
- Llopis filed a motion for appeal on September 21, 2015. The appellate court reviewed whether a motion for new trial is proper following denial of an interlocutory exception and whether the appeal could be treated as a writ application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of an exception of no cause of action is subject to new-trial relief | Llopis implicitly contended the trial court proceedings (including his late opposition) justified reconsideration | Defendants relied on the trial court’s power to grant new trial to reverse the denial | Denial of an exception of no cause of action is an interlocutory judgment; no procedure exists to obtain a new trial on such interlocutory rulings, so the trial court erred in using a new-trial motion to reverse its denial |
| Proper procedural vehicle for review of interlocutory denial of exception | Llopis sought appellate review by appeal after the trial court’s new-trial judgment | Defendants relied on motion for new trial to extend review opportunity | The proper vehicle is a supervisory writ application; motion for new trial does not substitute for writ procedure |
| Whether filing a motion for new trial suspends the time to seek supervisory writs | Llopis filed appeal after new-trial proceedings | Defendants argued new-trial filing justified later appeal/writ | Filing a motion for new trial does not suspend the thirty-day period for seeking supervisory writs; time for writs runs from interlocutory ruling |
| Whether the appellate court should convert the late appeal into a writ application | Llopis asked appellate review via appeal following new-trial judgment | Defendants sought to preserve review despite delay | Court declined to convert because the appeal was filed beyond the 30-day writ period and mandatory conversion conditions were unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- Alex v. Rayne Concrete Serv., 951 So.2d 138 (La. 2007) (supervisory writs are the primary means to seek review of interlocutory judgments)
- Carter v. Rhea, 785 So.2d 1022 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (motion for new trial cannot extend the time to file a writ for an interlocutory denial)
- Clement v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 735 So.2d 670 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1999) (denial of summary judgment is interlocutory; new-trial relief is unavailable for interlocutory rulings)
- Daniels v. SMG Crystal, LLC, 128 So.3d 1272 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (trial court erred by using motion for new trial to revisit denial of interlocutory summary-judgment motion)
- McGinn v. Crescent City Connection Bridge Auth., 174 So.3d 145 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (circumstances permitting conversion of an appeal to a writ application are limited and must meet specific conditions)
- Mandina, Inc. v. O’Brien, 156 So.3d 99 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (writ application is the proper device for interlocutory orders)
- Ramirez v. Evonir, LLC, 165 So.3d 260 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (discussing conversion of appeals to writ applications and timeliness considerations)
Result: Judgment vacated and case remanded for further proceedings because the trial court erred in granting a new trial on an interlocutory denial and the appellate court would not convert the late appeal into a writ application.