Summary
acknowledging that "prior to final judgment the trial court may, at its discretion and on its own motion, change the result of interlocutory rulings it finds to be erroneous" and that "a party may ask the trial court to exercise its discretion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling"
Summary of this case from In re Oak Island Corp.Opinion
No. 2024-CC-00134
03-19-2024
Louis R. KOERNER, Jr. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, Syndicates 0623 and 2623, Ms. Andrea St. Paul Bland and Mr. David Sinnott Bland
Genovese, J., would grant and docket. Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Orleans Civil, Civil District Court Numbers) 22-09768, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2023-C-0811.
PER CURIAM
On Supervisory Writ to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil
1Plaintiff seeks review of a judgment of the trial court denying his motion for new trial as untimely. Although plaintiff concedes his motion was filed outside of the seven-day new trial delay set forth in La. Code Civ. P. art. 1974, he contends the October 16, 2023 judgment which was the subject of the motion was interlocutory in nature and subject to reconsideration.
[1] The jurisprudence has recognized "a motion for new trial is a procedural device applying only to final judgments." Winston v. Martin, 34,424 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/21/00), 801 So.2d 389, 391. The October 16, 2023 judgment is interlocutory because it resolved less than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories at issue in the suit. In the absence of any language designating this judgment as final for purposes of an immediate appeal, La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B)(2) provides the judgment "may be revised at any time prior to rendition of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties."
[2] It is well-settled that prior to final judgment a trial court may, at its discretion and on its own motion, change the result of Interlocutory rulings it finds to be erroneous. Zapata v. Seal, 2020-01148 (La. 9/30/21), 330 So.3d 175, 178; VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001-0462 (La. 11/28/01), 801 So.2d 331, 334–35. Although we have never formally recognized wheth- er a motion for reconsideration 2was available in cases of interlocutory judgments, we have recognized a party may ask the trial court to exercise its discretion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling. See VaSalle, 801 So.2d at 337 (holding that because the trial judge had the right to reconsider his interlocutory ruling, "he had the right to accomplish the same end indirectly by acting on plaintiffs’ request that he reconsider his ruling").
Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion as untimely.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The judgment of the trial court is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to treat plaintiff’s motion for a new trial as a request for the court to exercise its discretion to reconsider its October 16, 2023 interlocutory ruling.
Genovese, J., would grant and docket.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.