259 So. 3d 630
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- After an October 23, 2017 flood, the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans issued an RFP for contract staff; six employees sought injunctive relief claiming job jeopardy. The trial court denied injunctive relief and granted Board exceptions on November 21, 2017.
- The Board reissued the solicitation as a request for qualifications; three employees (Maqubool, Eglin, Lockett) filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the Board from accepting bids or awarding contracts.
- The matter was heard by Judge Kern Reese; on April 17, 2018 the trial court denied the TRO, set the preliminary injunction for hearing by affidavit only, denied the Board’s motion to transfer and consolidate, denied several exceptions, and granted in part the petition for injunctive relief.
- The Board appealed; this Court directed clarification of the April 17 judgment to include proper decretal language; an “amended judgment” was later filed but misidentified the party who filed the injunction.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed whether the April 17 judgment was appealable and whether the appellate court had jurisdiction given defective decretal language and incorrect party identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's partial grant of a preliminary injunction is appealable | Petitioners contend the injunction ruling is appealable | Board argued various interlocutory rulings should be treated as non-appealable or reviewed separately | Court: Ruling on preliminary injunction is appealable as of right; interlocutory portions related to injunctive relief may be reviewed together |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction given defects in decretal language | Petitioners implicitly rely on the existing judgment to invoke review | Board raised that the judgment lacked required decretal language and misidentified parties | Court: April 17 judgment lacked proper decretal language and amended judgment misidentified parties; Court lacks jurisdiction to consider merits |
| Whether interlocutory rulings (transfer/consolidate, exceptions) may be reviewed on appeal | Petitioners sought review of entire judgment affecting injunctive relief | Board argued these interlocutory rulings are not separately appealable | Court: Appellant may seek review of interlocutory judgments prejudicial to them when appealing an appealable injunction, but jurisdictional defects prevented merits review here |
| Whether the appeal should proceed or be dismissed/remanded | Petitioners wanted merits review now | Board urged dismissal/clarification due to defective judgment | Court: Appeal dismissed for lack of appealable final judgment; remand for entry of a proper final appealable judgment; new appeal may be filed thereafter |
Key Cases Cited
- Yokum v. Pat O'Briens Bar, Inc., 190 So.3d 352 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2016) (judgment granting or denying preliminary injunction is interlocutory but may be appealable)
- Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Landry, 120 So.3d 952 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (interlocutory injunction review procedures)
- Orleans Parish School Board v. Lexington Insurance Co., 99 So.3d 723 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (appellant may seek review of all adverse interlocutory judgments when taking an unrestricted appeal)
- Urquhart v. Spencer, 204 So.3d 1074 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2016) (appellate court must ensure it has subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Moon v. City of New Orleans, 190 So.3d 422 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2016) (requirements for decretal language in appealable judgments)
- Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 151 So.3d 908 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2014) (judgment must name parties and state relief granted/denied to be appealable)
- State v. Foy, 439 So.2d 433 (La. 1983) (issues not briefed are abandoned)
- Bell v. Department of Police, 141 So.3d 871 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2014) (failure to brief an issue constitutes abandonment)