Opinion
CA 24-465
10-30-2024
TRISH R. VERONIE v. JOSEPH VICTOR VAN BROCKLIN MIRELES
Shane Michael Mouton DA's Office-Non-Support Div. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Paula B. Bertuccini COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles William A. Keaty, II John W. Tilly Keaty & Tilly COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Trish R. Veronie Michael A. Domingue, Jr. Domingue Law Firm, LLC COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles Richard J. Wolff COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C20183897 HONORABLE RONALD D. COX, DISTRICT JUDGE
Shane Michael Mouton
DA's Office-Non-Support Div.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana
Paula B. Bertuccini
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:
Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles
William A. Keaty, II
John W. Tilly
Keaty & Tilly
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE:
Trish R. Veronie
Michael A. Domingue, Jr.
Domingue Law Firm, LLC
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:
Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles
Richard J. Wolff
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:
Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles
Court composed of Sharon Darville Wilson, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Guy E. Bradberry, Judges.
SHARON DARVILLE WILSON JUDGE
On March 8, 2024, the trial court below heard a motion to recuse the honorable Thomas R. Duplantier which had been filed by Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles. The trial court denied said motion, signing the Judgment on April 2, 2024. The Clerk of Court noticed the signing of said Judgment on April 3, 2024. Appellant's notice of intent to file appeal was filed on June 3, 2024.
Upon the lodging of the record in this appeal, this court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely and as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment, citing La.Code Civ.P. arts. 3942 and 3943, as well as Deville v. Calogero, 96-162 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/24/96), 673 So.2d 1175. Appellant timely filed a response to this court's rule.
In his response to the rule to show cause, Appellant conceeded that the matter is "premature until the trial court either certifies the judgment below as a final judgment, the district court reconsiders its ruling, or until the entirety of appellant's motion is heard such that it would be a final judgment. As such, Appellant agree that this appeal should be dismissed without prejudice." Additionally, Appellant has not shown any good cause why his appeal was not untimely. Accordingly, we find that the appeal was filed untimely and taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment. For the reasons assigned, the appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
APPEAL DISMISSSED.