Opinion
NO. 2022 CA 0591.
12-22-2022
Carl KRIELOW, Glendon Marceaux, Phillip J. Watkins, and 44 Similarly Situated Plaintiffs v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY.
Lany S. Bankston , Jenna H. Linn , Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Kendall J. Krielow , Thibodaux, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees, Carl Krielow, Glendon Marceaux, Phillip J. Watkins, and 44 Similarly Situated Plaintiffs. Jeff Landry , Attorney General, Andrew Blanchfield , Chelsea A. Payne , Assistant Attorneys General, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Jeff Landry , Attorney General, Christina B. Peck , Assistant Attorney General, H. Alston Johnson, III , Shelton Dennis Blunt , Paul LeBlanc , Monica M. Vela-Vick , Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants, Louisiana Rice Promotion Board and Louisiana Rice Research Board. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND WOLFE, JJ.
Lany S. Bankston , Jenna H. Linn , Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Kendall J. Krielow , Thibodaux, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees, Carl Krielow, Glendon Marceaux, Phillip J. Watkins, and 44 Similarly Situated Plaintiffs.
Jeff Landry , Attorney General, Andrew Blanchfield , Chelsea A. Payne , Assistant Attorneys General, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
Jeff Landry , Attorney General, Christina B. Peck , Assistant Attorney General, H. Alston Johnson, III , Shelton Dennis Blunt , Paul LeBlanc , Monica M. Vela-Vick , Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants, Louisiana Rice Promotion Board and Louisiana Rice Research Board.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND WOLFE, JJ.
WOLFE, J.
This is an appeal from a trial court judgment granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs/appellees and denying motions for summary judgment in favor of the defendants/appellants. For the following reasons, we dismiss the defendants' appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
This litigation began over ten years ago, when the plaintiffs, Carl Krielow, Glendon Marceaux, Phillip J. Watkins, and 44 similarly situated individuals (collectively referred to as the "Rice Growers"), challenged the constitutionality of La. R.S. 3:3534 and La. R.S. 3:3544 (the "Rice Statutes") that authorized the Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (the "LDAF") to collect monetary assessments imposed on the Rice Growers. The collected funds were then paid to the Louisiana Rice Promotion Board and the Louisiana Rice Research Board (collectively referred to as the "Rice Boards") to promote the growth and development of the rice industry in Louisiana. In 2013, the Louisiana Supreme Court declared the Rice Statutes to be unconstitutional, as an improper delegation of legislative authority. See Krielow v. Louisiana Dept. of Agric. & Forestry, 2013-1106 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 384, 395-396.
After the supreme court's ruling, the Rice Growers sought class certification for the restitution of the wrongful assessments. The trial court certified a class action and years of litigation ensued, culminating in this court's determination that the only permissible certified class consists of persons who paid the rice assessments in the period from May 16, 2011 through July 31, 2014. See Krielow v. Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, 2019-1696 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/30/20), 317 So.3d 699, 702. Thereafter, each of the parties filed motions for summary judgment addressing the merits of the dispute. After a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment on February 25, 2022, denying the motions for summary judgment filed by the Rice Boards and the LDAF, and granting summary judgment in favor of the Rice Growers, declaring the amounts of the rice assessments collected by each of the Rice Boards. The Rice Boards and the LDAF (the "defendants") have appealed that judgment, which provided in pertinent part, as follows:
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment is rendered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry and Louisiana Rice Research Board, for the rice research assessments collected from May 16, 2011 to July 31, 2014 in the amount of $5,005,154.00 plus judicial interest and all costs of this proceeding.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment is rendered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry and Louisiana Rice Promotion Board, for the rice promotion assessments collected from May 16, 2011 to July 31, 2014 in the amount of $3,014,902.00 plus judicial interest and all costs of this proceeding.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
After the record was lodged, this court issued a rule, ex proprio motu, ordering the parties to show cause by briefs why the instant appeal should not be dismissed because it was taken from a non-final judgment. The rule stated:
It is not possible to determine from the judgment alone that all claims between the parties are resolved by the February 25, 2022 judgment or whether a La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B) designation is necessary. Additionally, the judgment does not specify whether "all costs of this proceeding" includes court costs, attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and/or other expenses incurred. See D'Luca v. Kirkland, 2020-0713, 2020-0714, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/19/21), 321 So.3d 411, 413. A valid judgment must be "precise, definite, and certain." Id. These determinations should be evident from the language of a judgment without reference to other documents in the record, such as pleadings and reasons for judgment. Id. at 413-414; U.S. [Bank National] Association v. Dumas, 2021-0585, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/21), [340 So.3d 246, 247-248], 2021 WL 6069038, *2.
The parties responded by filing briefs wherein they disagree as to whether the judgment is appealable absent a 1915(B) certification. The parties also disagree as to whether the judgment awarding "all costs of this proceeding" is sufficiently "precise, definite, and certain." The defendants maintain that the judgment resolves all merits issues between the parties and is appealable as a matter of right and/or resolves all issues in the principal demand such that it is appealable under the express provisions of La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(A)(3). The plaintiff Rice Growers argue to the contrary, that the judgment is not final in that it does not adjudicate many contested matters attendant to class action adjudication such as class notice procedure, or an award of the litigation costs including but not limited to court costs, expert fees, claims administration fees, and attorney fees. After the parties filed their briefs in response to our show cause order, this court issued an interim order on September 30, 2022, stating:
It is not possible to determine from the February 25, 2022 judgment alone whether the judgment is appealable as a matter of right or whether a La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B) designation may be necessary. While the [Rice Boards suggest] that the judgment is final and adjudicates all issues between the parties or, at a minimum, resolves all of plaintiffs' claims in the principal demand and is appealable under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(A)(3), the judgment at issue does not provide as such; rather, one must consider extrinsic sources in order to make that determination. The specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment itself without reference to an extrinsic source, such as a pleading or reasons for judgment. State by and through Caldwell v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., 2017-0448 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/8/18), 242 So.3d 597, 602. See Thompson v. Cenac Towing Co., L.L.C., 2018-1282 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/19), 2019 WL 1578170, *2 (unpublished). In the absence of either appropriate decretal language indicating that the judgment resolves all issues between the parties or all of plaintiffs' claims in the principal demand or a La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B) designation, the February 25, 2022, judgment is defective and cannot be considered a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Id.
Accordingly, we REMAND THIS MATTER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE of requesting that the trial court, in accordance with Article 1951, issue an amended judgment that corrects the foregoing deficiencies and complies with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1918, see La. Code Civ. P. arts. 1918(A), 1951, and 2088(A)(12), as amended by 2021 La. Acts No. 259. In addition, in the event that the judgment does not resolve all issues among the parties or all of plaintiffs' claims in the principal demand, the trial court can choose to certify the judgment in accord with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B), or to indicate that it declines to certify the amended judgment at this time. We instruct the Clerk of Court's Office of East Baton Rouge Parish to supplement the appellate record with the amended judgment by October 31, 2022.
Thereafter, the appellate record was supplemented with an amended judgment signed by the trial court on October 25, 2022, wherein the trial court maintained its original ruling in favor of the Rice Growers and the assessments to be collected from the Rice Boards. In direct response to this court's interim order, the trial court further decreed that the amended judgment did "not adjudicate all claims, demands, issues, or theories asserted," and the trial court accordingly declined to designate the amended judgment as a final judgment pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B). The trial court further ordered that it reserved the "setting and taxing of [all court costs and expert witness fees] for a later date."
The amended judgment is clearly interlocutory, leaving the determination of some merits issues unresolved and specifically reserving the setting of costs and fees for another date after all merits issues are adjudicated. Therefore, the judgment is indefinite, not final, and not appealable. See Advanced Leveling & Concrete Solutions v. Lathan Company, Inc., 2017-1250 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/20/18), 268 So.3d 1044, 1046 (en banc), holding that this court's appellate jurisdiction extends only to final judgments. A judgment lacks appropriate decretal language to be considered final when it is necessary to consider documents beyond the four corners of the judgment. See Thompson v. Cenac Towing Co., L.L.C., 2018-1282 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/19), 2019 WL 1578170, *2 (unpublished).
Although this court has discretion to convert a timely motion for appeal to an application for supervisory writs, there are limitations on this authority. Pursuant to Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), appellate courts should consider an application for supervisory writs when the trial court judgment is arguably incorrect, there is no dispute of fact to be resolved, and a reversal would terminate the litigation. The Herlitz factors are not met at this time. An appellate court will generally refrain from the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction when an adequate remedy exists by appeal upon the entry of the requisite final judgment. See Boyd Louisiana Racing, Inc. v. Bridges, 2015-0393 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/23/15), 2015 WL 9435285, *4 (unpublished). Therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to convert this appeal to an application for supervisory writs, and we dismiss this appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the stated reasons, we dismiss the appeal of the October 25, 2022 amended judgment. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $8,973.00 are assessed to defendants/appellants, the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, the Louisiana Rice Promotion Board, and the Louisiana Rice Research Board.