Aline Waterman v. Acadiana Mall Cmbs, LLC D/B/A/ the Mall of Acadiana

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 11, 2018
• Docket: CA-0018-0316
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 18-316

ALINE WATERMAN

VERSUS

ACADIANA MALL CMBS, LLC D/B/A THE MALL OF ACADIANA, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20133079 HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

JOHN E. CONERY

JUDGE

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, John E. Conery and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.

Larry Lane Roy Elizabeth C. Austin Brown Sims, P.C. 600 Jefferson St., Suite 800 Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 484-1240 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Acadiana Mall CMBS, LLC CBL and Associates Management, Inc. Nickles and Dimes, Incorporated Jeremy L. Pichon Alex A. Lauricella Didriksen, Saucier, Woods & Pichon 3114 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 586-1600 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Aline Waterman

Raymond A. Brown 2200 Veterans Boulevard, Suite 116 E Kenner, LA 70062 (504)273-1510 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Aline Waterman CONERY, Judge.

Upon the lodging of the record in this appeal, this court, on its own motion,

issued a rule for the Plaintiff-Appellant, Aline Waterman, to show cause why the

appeal should not be dismissed as premature, citing Egle v. Egle, 05-531 (La.App. 3

Cir. 2/8/06), 923 So.2d 780. Plaintiff timely filed a response to this court’s rule. For

the reasons assigned, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand the case.

The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees,

Acadiana Mall CMBS, LLC; CBL & Associates Management, Inc.; Nickels and

Dimes, Inc.; and ABC Insurance Companies, dismissing all claims against the

Defendants by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff timely filed a motion for new trial. No hearing

was held on the motion. Instead, on the order filed with the motion for new trial

asking that the trial court set the motion for hearing, the trial court struck through the

order language and handwrote, “Denied for reasons stated in this Court’s ruling.” The

record is devoid of any “reasons” issued by the trial court regarding the motion for

new trial, the only reasons appearing of record being those rendered with reference to

the final judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims.

In Egle, 923 So.2d 780, this court held that an appeal is premature when taken

before a contradictory hearing at which a ruling is entered on all timely-filed post-

judgment motions or before a written judgment has been rendered on all such motions.

Specifically, this court noted that the trial court’s denial of an order to set such post-

judgment motions for hearing does not suffice to rule on the merits of the motions.

Therefore, this court dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter for a disposition

of the post-judgment motions. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Egle, we

likewise dismiss this appeal without prejudice, at Plaintiff’s cost, for having been filed

prematurely, and remand the matter to the trial court for a ruling on the motion for

new trial. APPEAL DISMISSSED; CASE REMANDED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.