Opinion
2018 CA 0239
09-21-2018
AQUENTEYA Q. ROGERS v. DARIOUS E. ROGERS
Sean Cassidy Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant, Aquenteya Q. Rogers Darious Rogers Bogalusa, Louisiana In Proper Person/Appellee
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Washington State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 110,811 The Honorable William J. "Rusty" Knight, Judge Presiding Sean Cassidy
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Aquenteya Q. Rogers Darious Rogers
Bogalusa, Louisiana In Proper Person/Appellee BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ. PENZATO, J.
Appellant, Aquenteya Q. Rogers, appeals that portion of the trial court's judgment casting her with half the costs following denial of her petition for protection from stalking or sexual assault against Appellee, Darious E. Rogers. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arises out of an incident that occurred on April 15, 2017, whereby Ms. Rogers claimed she was sexually assaulted by her second cousin, Darious, and that she was subsequently stalked by him. Ms. Rogers filed a petition for protection from stalking or sexual assault pursuant to La. R.S. 46:2171 et seq. or La. R.S. 46:2181 et seq. The Commissioner of the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court determined that Ms. Rogers failed to prove the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, Ms. Rogers filed an exception to the Commissioner's ruling denying her request for a protective order. The trial court held a hearing on the exception on September 25, 2017, at which both parties presented testimony. The trial court orally noted that even after the testimony was taken, the trial court was uncertain as to what occurred on the night in question. Therefore, the trial court upheld the Commissioner's finding that no protective order was appropriate. The trial court also noted that he did not find Ms. Rogers's petition to be frivolous, but that it was not well-founded. The trial court divided the costs equally between the parties both orally and in its October 17, 2017 signed judgment.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue. Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 2011-0520 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So. 3d 1054, 1059, writ denied, 2012-0360 (La. 4/9/12), 85 So. 3d 698. This court's appellate jurisdiction extends to "final judgments," which are those that determine the merits in whole or in part. See La. C.C.P. arts. 1841 and 2083.
A valid judgment must be "precise, definite, and certain." Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002-0045 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/20/02), 836 So. 2d 364, 365. Moreover, 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. See Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 2001-2016 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/27/02), 837 So. 2d 43, 44. These determinations should be evident from the language of a judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Laird, 836 So. 2d at 366. Thus, a judgment that does not contain decretal language cannot be considered as a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review such a judgment. See Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 2005-0337 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/06), 934 So. 2d 66, 67. These determinations should be evident from the language of a judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Laird, 836 So. 2d at 366.
In this case, the October 17, 2017 judgment that Ms. Rogers seeks to appeal denied the petition for protection from sexual assault but does not provide any other relief. We find that the judgment is defective and is not a final judgment for the purpose of an appeal because it does not contain appropriate decretal language and does not dismiss any claims or the petition. See Cutright v. Waits, 2015-0737 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/10/15), 2015 WL 7075405 (unpublished); Gaten v. Tangipahoa Parish School System, 2011-1133 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/23/12), 91 So. 3d 1073, 1074 (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). In the absence of a valid judgment, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the matter and we dismiss the appeal from the October 17, 2017 judgment.
Ms. Rogers seeks an appeal from the September 25, 2017 oral ruling. A final, appealable judgment must be reduced to writing. La. C.C.P. art. 1911. See Hains v. Hains, 2009-1337 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/10/10), 36 So. 3d 289, 301 (oral ruling must be reduced to writing to be considered a final judgment). Because we dismiss the appeal on an alternative ground, we pretermit any discussion regarding her failure to seek an appeal from a final, written judgment.
We recognize that this court has discretion to convert an appeal on a non-appealable judgment to an application for supervisory writs. See Stelluto v. Stelluto, 2005-0074 (La. 6/29/05), 914 So. 2d 34, 39. Generally, appellate courts have exercised that discretion when the motion for appeal was 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, and where reversal of the district court's decision would terminate the litigation, or where clear error in the district court's judgment, if not corrected, will create an injustice. However, when the jurisdictional defect lies in the non-finality of a judgment (as opposed to an appeal from an interlocutory appeal), an appellate court will generally refrain from the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction when an adequate remedy exists by appeal, particularly when an adequate remedy by appeal will exist upon the entry of the requisite precise, definite, and certain decretal language necessary for appellate review. This is because in the absence of proper decretal language, the judgment is defective; and this court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits, even if we were to convert the matter to an application for supervisory writs. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to convert this appeal of a judgment that is not final for lack of decretal language to an application for supervisory writs. See Boyd Louisiana Racing, Inc. v. Bridges, 2015-0393, pp. 2-4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/15), 2015 WL 9435285 (unpublished). --------
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, the appeal of the October 17, 2017 judgment is dismissed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the appellant, Aquenteya Q. Rogers.
APPEAL DISMISSED.