MR Pittman Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Government
Docket: No. 2015-CA-0395
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; September 16, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
On January 5, 2015, the trial court dismissed Plaquemines Parish Government's contract-based claims against Evans-Graves Engineers, Inc. and Professional Engineering Consulting Corporation. Plaquemines Parish appealed this judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the judgment was not final and thus not appealable, as it did not resolve all claims against the defendants, nor was it designated as a final judgment by the trial court. The court emphasized that a final judgment must adjudicate all issues or claims or be explicitly designated as final for an appeal to be permissible. Since the judgment only dismissed some claims and did not meet the criteria for a final judgment, the appeal was dismissed. Plaquemines Parish requested the court to convert the appeal into a writ application or issue a remand order, but the court declined to take either action, noting that such conversions are discretionary.
Appellate courts have the discretion to convert an improperly filed appeal into an application for supervisory writs, especially when an independent review of the record indicates that such conversion could resolve all issues in the case without necessitating a remand for a final judgment. This approach promotes judicial efficiency and fairness, as long as there are no factual disputes. Any party can seek supervisory writs by demonstrating that immediate review would expedite the litigation's conclusion. However, in this case, the appellant could not convincingly argue that converting the appeal would terminate the litigation, as the outcome depended on another party's pending appeal. Furthermore, the appellant's petition for appeal was filed after the 30-day deadline for supervisory writ applications, as specified in the Uniform Rules. Consequently, the court declined to convert the appeal to a writ application. Additionally, a suggestion for a limited remand to the trial court was deemed unnecessary since parties can request a designation of finality from the trial judge at any point before the final judgment is entered. The court dismissed the appeal of the partial judgment, noting that the appellant's jurisdictional statement failed to meet the required standards for appealability.
La. C.C.P. art. 1915 A allows for a final judgment to be rendered even if it does not fully resolve all issues or grant all relief sought, under several conditions: 1) dismissal of the suit concerning some but not all parties; 2) granting of a motion for judgment on the pleadings; 3) granting of a motion for summary judgment (excluding certain cases); 4) signing a judgment on principal or incidental demands tried separately; 5) signing a judgment on liability when that issue has been separately tried; 6) imposition of sanctions or disciplinary actions as outlined in specified articles. The excerpt references R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, emphasizing that appellate courts should conduct a de novo review when a trial court labels a partial judgment as final without clear reasoning. According to La. C.C.P. art. 1915 B(1), a partial judgment does not count as final unless explicitly designated as such by the court, confirming no just reason for delay. The document mentions that the Herlitz factors influence the consideration of supervisory writ applications and cautions that mere agreement between parties for immediate review does not obligate appellate courts to grant discretionary review. It also notes the repeal of Article 1915's certification procedure, which allowed for finality based on party agreement.
