Thomas v. Lafayette Parish School System
128 So. 3d 1055
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Thomas challenges a partial summary judgment against her in a workers’ compensation case against Lafayette Parish School Board.
- The workers’ compensation court granted Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on October 29, 2012; notice of judgment mailed that day.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for appeal on December 14, 2012; the appeal record was lodged in this court January 29, 2013.
- This court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lacking decretal language in the judgment.
- The judgment stated, in pertinent part, that the School Board’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted.
- Court held the judgment ambiguous and lacking decretal language, thus the appeal was dismissed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment contains proper decretal language | Thomas argues the language complies with final judgment requirements. | Lafayette Parish School Board argues the language is sufficient for a final order. | Judgment is ambiguous and lacks decretal language; dismissal required. |
| Whether the appeal is from an appealable judgment | Thomas contends the judgment is final for appeal. | Defendant maintains it may not be appealable due to ambiguity. | Appeal dismissed for lack of an appealable decretal judgment. |
| Whether the appeal can be converted to a supervisory writ | Thomas asks to convert to a supervisory writ. | State that conversion is inappropriate if the judgment terminates the suit. | Motion to convert denied; supervisory writ not warranted. |
| Whether partial judgment could be immediately appealable under Article 1915 | Thomas argues partial judgment could be appealable per Article 1915. | Partial judgment not immediately appealable; remedy is final judgment appeal. | Partial judgment would not be immediately appealable; final judgment remedy required. |
| What is the proper remedy given lack of decretal language | Thomas seeks to preserve appeal. | Remand for proper decretal language and proceedings. | Appeal dismissed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 921 So.2d 1144 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2006) (final judgment must be precise and contain decretal language)
- Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 818 So.2d 906 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2002) (judgment cannot refer to extrinsic documents to discern ruling)
- Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 1057934 So.2d 66 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2006) (ambiguity in judgment affects appealability)
- Douglass v. Alton Ochsner Medical Found., 695 So.2d 953 (La.6/13/1997) (appellate jurisdiction and availability of supervisory writs)
- Rhodes v. Lewis, 817 So.2d 64 (La.5/14/2002) (La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1915 not applicable to workers’ compensation)