Opinion
NO. 2017 CA 1400
04-06-2018
HARRIETTE B. PUGH v. ST. JOHN FATHERS' CLUB
Robert L. Campbell Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant, Harriette B. Pugh John B. Dunlap III Jennifer A. Fiore Hunter R. Bertrand Claire E. Sauls Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee, St. John Fathers' Club
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from The 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 74019
The Honorable Elizabeth A. Engolio, Judge Presiding Robert L. Campbell
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Harriette B. Pugh John B. Dunlap III
Jennifer A. Fiore
Hunter R. Bertrand
Claire E. Sauls
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee,
St. John Fathers' Club BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ. CRAIN, J.
Harriette B. Pugh appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant, St. John Fathers' Club. Recognizing our lack of appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Pugh filed suit against St. John alleging she suffered injuries when a chair collapsed beneath her on St. John's premises. St. John responded with a motion for summary judgment asserting Pugh could not meet her burden of proof, and requesting her claims be dismissed. In a judgment signed on July 14, 2017, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. However, the judgment did not dismiss Pugh's claims. After the record was lodged on appeal, this court, ex proprio motu, issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the judgment appeared to lack appropriate decretal language. In a response brief, St. John acknowledged the judgment lacked decretal language and requested the case be remanded to permit the trial court to sign an amended judgment. The rule was referred to this panel for disposition.
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties, and to grant the relief to which they are entitled. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1. Appellate courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even if the litigants do not raise the issue. Succession of Matthews, 16-0289 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/5/17), 212 So. 3d 547, 551, writ denied, 17-0230 (La. 3/31/17), 217 So. 3d 361.
This court's appellate jurisdiction extends to final judgments. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 2083; Malus v. Adair Asset Management, LLC, 16-0610 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/16), 209 So. 3d 1055, 1059. A final judgment determines the merits of a controversy in whole or in part. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841. A final appealable judgment must contain decretal language, and it must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied. Gaten v. Tangipahoa Parish School System, 11-1133 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/23/12), 91 So. 3d 1073, 1074. These determinations should be evident from the language of a judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Id.
The judgment in this case states that the motion for summary judgment is "GRANTED," but provides no other relief. Where a judgment merely grants a motion for summary judgment, but fails to contain proper decretal language, the judgment is defective and cannot be considered a final judgment. Gillum v. Lewis, 16-0581, 2017WL658736 p.2 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/17/17); Gaten, 91 So. 3d at 1074. In the absence of a final judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this matter. See Gillum, 2017WL658736 at p.2; Gaten, 91 So. 3d at 1074. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed.
Although this court has discretion to convert an appeal to an application for supervisory writs, it may only do so if the appeal would have been timely had it been filed as a supervisory writ application. Succession of Jaga, 16-1291 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/15/17), 227 So. 3d 325, 328 n.2. A party intending to apply to this court for a supervisory writ shall give notice of such intention by requesting a return date to be set by the trial court, which shall not exceed thirty days from the date of the notice of judgment. See Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rules 4-2 and 4-3. The present appeal was not filed within thirty days of the notice of judgment; therefore, the motion for appeal cannot be considered a timely filed application for supervisory writs. --------
CONCLUSION
The appeal is dismissed. Assessment of appeal costs shall await final disposition of this matter.
APPEAL DISMISSED.