Opinion
2023 CA 1203
05-31-2024
SRG BATON ROUGE II, L.L.C. v. PATTEN/JENKINS BR POPEYE'S, L.L.C.
Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr. Mary Katherine Price Alexandria, Louisiana Antonio M. Tony Clayton Port Allen, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff/ Appellee SRG Baton Rouge II, L.L.C. Geoffrey D. Westmoreland Anna W. O'Neal Caroline D. Alford Shreveport, Louisiana Timothy W. Hardy Baton Rouge, Louisiana Druitt G. Gremillion, Jr. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant Patten/Jenkins BRPopeye's, L.L.C.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. C679391 The Honorable Trudy M. White, Judge Presiding
Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr. Mary Katherine Price Alexandria, Louisiana Antonio M. "Tony" Clayton Port Allen, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff/ Appellee SRG Baton Rouge II, L.L.C.
Geoffrey D. Westmoreland Anna W. O'Neal Caroline D. Alford Shreveport, Louisiana Timothy W. Hardy Baton Rouge, Louisiana Druitt G. Gremillion, Jr. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant Patten/Jenkins BRPopeye's, L.L.C.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.
LANIER, J.
In this declaratory action seeking performance, reformation, and damages relative to the enforceability of a commercial lease and the option to purchase provision contained therein, defendant, Patten/Jenkins BR Popeye's, L.L.C. ("Patten/Jenkins"), appeals the trial court's summary judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, SRG Baton Rouge II, L.L.C. ("SRG"). SRG answered the appeal. Although the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of SRG, ordering Patten/Jenkins to take the necessary steps to perfect the sale of the property to SRG, the judgment did not dispose of all the claims presented to the court. In a companion appeal also decided this date, Patten/Jenkins challenges the trial court's judgment on damages, as well as several other interlocutory rulings. See SRG Baton Rouge II, L.L.C, v. Patten/Jenkins BR Popeye's, L.L.C., 2023 CA 1204 (La.App. 1 Cir.___/___/___),___So.3d___("SRG II").
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915(B)(1) authorizes the appeal of a partial summary judgment as to "one or more but less than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories" presented where the judgment is designated as a final judgment by the trial court after a determination that there is no just reason for delay. Absent a designation of a judgment as final under Article 1915(B)(1), a partial summary judgment may be revised at any time prior to the rendition of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B)(2); Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. Energy Development Corporation, 2016-0171 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/12/17), 218 So.3d 1045, 1054. Because the trial court did not designate the judgment as final under Article 1915(B)(1), this partial judgment cannot constitute a final judgment for purposes of an appeal. Thus, we dismiss this appeal, noting that we will consider the arguments raised regarding the summary judgment in connection with our review in SRG II.
Shortly after Patten/Jenkins filed its appeal in this matter and in SRG II, SRG moved to consolidate the two appeals, arguing the "the two appeals should proceed in one streamlined proceeding." SRG added it had "no objection to Patten/Jenkins raising its grievances with the summary judgment ruling on appeal along with the final judgment awarding SRG damages." Patten/Jenkins agreed with consolidation of the appeals for purposes of consideration by the same panel, but opposed consolidation for the purposes of briefing. This court granted the motion to consolidate, ordering that SRG II be consolidated with this appeal for argument and submission. When an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, the appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse interlocutory rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to review of the final judgment appealed. Young v. City of Plaquemine, 2004-2305 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/4/05), 927 So.2d 408, 411. Thus, the issue of whether summary judgment was appropriately granted in this case will be fully addressed in SRG II.
APPEAL AND ANSWER TO APPEAL DISMISSED.