242 So. 3d 597
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Louisiana (AG) sued Teva, Mylan, Ranbaxy and others alleging a scheme to delay generic entry of Provigil, causing Louisiana Medicaid to overpay (claims under Louisiana Monopolies Act (LMA), Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA) and unjust enrichment).
- Trial court heard multiple exceptions; on June 1, 2016 it dismissed only the unjust enrichment claim (without prejudice) and granted some exceptions but did not include decretal language disposing of other claims; it allowed 30 days to amend LMA claims.
- State filed an amended petition (explicitly incorporating and preserving the original petition). Defendants moved to strike and filed exceptions; on December 8, 2016 the trial court struck much of the amended petition and dismissed the amended petition in its entirety with prejudice, and granted exceptions dismissing LMA and certain LUTPA injunctive claims as to the amended petition.
- The State appealed both judgments; the appellate court issued show-cause orders questioning finality and timeliness because the June 1 judgment appeared partial and uncertified, and the December 8 judgment appeared to dismiss only the amended petition while the original petition remained alive.
- The court held neither June 1 nor December 8 judgments were final appealable judgments (partial rulings lacked decretal language and Article 1915 certification; amended petition did not supersede the original), thus the court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and denied as moot defendants’ motion for partial dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of June 1, 2016 judgment | June 1 interlocutory; not final | June 1 was a partial final judgment disposing of claims | Court: June 1 dismissed only unjust enrichment; lacked decretal language for other claims and no Article 1915 certification; not appealable |
| Finality of Dec. 8, 2016 judgment | Dec. 8 is final and permits review of interlocutory rulings (including June 1) | Dec. 8 disposed of the entire suit; appeal timely | Court: Dec. 8 dismissed only the amended petition; original petition and some claims remained; not a final Article 1915 judgment; no jurisdiction |
| Effect of amended petition on original petition | Amended petition superseded and replaced original, so dismissal of amended = dismissal of claims | Amended petition expressly preserved and incorporated original; original claims survive | Court: Amended petition preserved original (it incorporated and retained original prayer); original petition not superseded; many claims remained |
| Use of motion to strike to dismiss claims | Defendants used motion to strike to eliminate claims in amended petition | State argued strike cannot substitute for dismissal on merits | Court: Motion to strike removes insufficient or immaterial pleadings, not a means to dismiss causes of action; ruling on strike is interlocutory and not independently appealable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Judson v. Davis, 916 So.2d 1106 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2005) (when appealing a final judgment appellant may seek review of adverse interlocutory rulings)
- Van ex rel. White v. Davis, 808 So.2d 478 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (defining appellate jurisdiction over final judgments)
- Rhodes v. Lewis, 817 So.2d 64 (La. 2002) (partial final judgments are appealable only if authorized by La. C.C.P. art. 1915)
- Best Fishing, Inc. v. Rancatore, 706 So.2d 161 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1997) (amended petition may preserve original petition; judgment addressing only amended petition can be a non-appealable partial judgment)
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (judgment partially maintaining exception of no cause of action is a partial final judgment only if Article 1915 authorizes it)
- Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 837 So.2d 43 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (final judgment must contain decretal language identifying parties and relief granted or denied)