Opinion
NO. 2015-CA-0828
01-27-2016
HARRY BATT, III v. DR. KENNETH COHEN, GURTLER BROS. CONSULTANTS, INC. AND ASHLEY VAN DER MEULEN
Bradley S. Groce David V. Batt LOBMAN CARNAHAN BATT ANGELLE & NADER 400 Poydras Street The Texaco Center, Suite 2300 New Orleans, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT Albert J. Nicaud Jeffrey M. Siemssen NICAUD & SUNSERI, LLC 3000 18th Street Metairie, LA 70002 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2006-07806, DIVISION "M"
Honorable Paulette R. Irons, Judge Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano (Court composed of Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins) LEDET, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS Bradley S. Groce
David V. Batt
LOBMAN CARNAHAN BATT ANGELLE & NADER
400 Poydras Street
The Texaco Center, Suite 2300
New Orleans, LA 70130
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT Albert J. Nicaud
Jeffrey M. Siemssen
NICAUD & SUNSERI, LLC
3000 18th Street
Metairie, LA 70002
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES
APPEAL CONVERTED TO WRIT; WRIT DENIED
Dr. Harry Batt, III filed this matter as an appeal of the district court's May 28, 2015 judgment granting Gurtler Bros. Consultants, Inc.'s and Ashley Van Der Meulen's exception of no right of action and motion in limine. The judgment ruled only on the limited issue of Dr. Batt's ability to recover costs of repair/replacement of the Common Elements of Doctors Row, Houma Boulevard, a Condominium, Inc., but did not dismiss all of Dr. Batt's claims against Gurtler Bros. or Van Der Meulen. It is therefore not a final, appealable judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 1915(B) and 2083, absent any designation as a final judgment by the district court; it is an interlocutory judgment.
Appeals erroneously taken on interlocutory judgments can be converted and reviewed as an application for supervisory writ, which we find appropriate in this matter. See Ordoyne v. Ordoyne, 2007-0235 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/2/08), 982 So.2d 899; Ganier v. Inglewood Homes, Inc., 2006-0642 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/8/06), 944 So.2d 753; Rule 4-3, Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal. This Court may do so only when, as here, the motion for appeal has been filed within the thirty-day time period allowed for the filing of an application for supervisory writs under Rule 4-3 of the Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal.
We thus exercise our discretion and convert the instant appeal of the May 28, 2015 judgment to an application for supervisory writ.
The writ application is denied.
APPEAL CONVERTED TO WRIT; WRIT DENIED