NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
19-103
FRANK COLLATT AND JENNIFER CORREIA
VERSUS
BARBARA T. BOUDREAUX AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
**********
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20145830, DIV. F HONORABLE DAVID M. SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE
********** PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.
APPEAL SUSPENDED. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Brian M. Caubarreaux Laura B. Knoll Eugene A. Ledet, Jr. Emily Gremillion Brian Caubarreaux & Associates 144 Tunica Drive West Marksville, Louisiana 71351 (318) 253-0900 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Jennifer Correia J. P. D’Albor Haik, Minivelle & Grubbs 1017 East Dale Street New Iberia, Louisiana 70560 (337) 365-5486 Counsel for Intervenor: Lafayette Surgical Hospital, LLC
Robert Mark Marionneaux, Jr. The Marionneaux Law Firm 660 Saint Ferdinand Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 (225) 330-6679 Counsel for Plaintiff /Appellant: Jennifer Correia
F. Douglas Wimberly Cloyd, Wimberly & Villemarette, LLC 302 La Rue France, Suite 204 Lafayette, Louisiana 70508 (337) 289-6906 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Barbara T. Boudreaux State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company KEATY, Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Jennifer Correia (Correia), appeals a September 17, 2018
judgment on her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). For the
reasons that follow, we suspend the appeal and remand this matter to the trial court
with instructions to issue a judgment containing proper decretal language.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Correia and Frank Collatt (Collatt) filed suit against Barbara T. Boudreaux
(Boudreaux) and her insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
(State Farm), following an automobile accident that occurred on December 5, 2013.
The vehicle being driven by Correia and occupied by Collatt as a guest passenger
was stopped in the drive-through lane at the Chick-Fil-A on Ambassador Caffery
Parkway in Lafayette, Louisiana, when it was rear-ended twice by the vehicle that
Boudreaux was driving.
A review of the record reveals the following facts. Although the same
attorney represented Boudreaux and State Farm, separate answers were filed on
behalf of each. Correia and Collatt filed a motion for summary judgment, which
was not opposed by the defendants, and the trial court entered judgment finding
Boudreaux one hundred percent at fault in causing the accident.1 Interventions were
filed by Alfred Boustany, II, APLC, the attorney who previously represented Correia
and Collatt, and by Lafayette Surgical Hospital, LLC.
Correia’s claims proceeded to trial by jury, and a verdict was returned in her
favor. She was awarded $120,960.04 for past medical expenses; $120,000.00 for
future medical expenses; $50,000.00 for past mental and physical pain and suffering;
$50,000.00 for future mental and physical pain and suffering; $41,600.00 for past
1 Collatt’s claims settled prior to trial and are not at issue in this appeal. lost wages; $20,800.00 for future lost wages; and $40,000.00 for permanent
disability. The jury did not award Correia any damages for permanent scarring and
disfigurement or for loss of enjoyment of life. A judgment in accordance with the
jury’s verdict was signed by the trial court.
Thereafter, Correia filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
which was set for contradictory hearing on August 6, 2018. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court awarded Correia $15,000.00 for scarring and disfigurement,
$25,000.00 for loss of enjoyment of life, and otherwise left untouched the damages
awarded by the jury. Counsel for Boudreaux and State Farm was ordered to prepare
a judgment. On September 17, 2018, the trial court signed the judgment presented
to it. That judgment provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Court, after considering the pleadings filed, argument of counsel, and Louisiana Law, rendered Judgment as follows:
With regard to plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, the award for permanent scarring and disfigurement is increased from $0 to $15,000.00; and the award for loss of enjoyment of life is increased from $0 to $25,000.00. All other damages listed on the Jury Verdict Form remain the same.
The defendants did not appeal either judgment. Correia filed a motion for
devolutive appeal of “the original Judgment rendered by the jury and signed by the
presiding judge on May 24, 2018, as well as the Judgment Notwithstanding the
Verdict signed on September 17, 2018.” When the record was received by this court,
we discovered that the September 17, 2018 judgment did not state the relief granted
or denied, nor did it name the parties cast in judgment. 2 Thereafter, we ordered
2 “A valid judgment must be precise, definite and certain.” Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Techs., Inc., 10-477, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 915. “The result decreed must be spelled out in lucid, unmistakable language.” Id. at 916. “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.” Id.
2 Correia to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken
from a judgment that lacked proper decretal language.3 See Input/Output Marine
Sys., 52 So.3d 909, and Mouton v. AAA Cooper Transp., 17-666, 17-667 (La.App. 3
Cir. 1/10/18), 237 So.3d 594.
In response to the rule to show cause, Correia asks this court to either exercise
its supervisory jurisdiction to render a judgment with appropriate decretal language
or to suspend the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to
sign a judgment containing the proper decretal language. Correia avers that the
defendants do not object to either course of action by this court.
In Mouton, 237 So.2d 594, this court discussed the argument that it should
render a final judgment and then decide the merits of the appeal. Therein, this court
declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction because “the judgment was rendered
after a trial on the merits and after consideration of a motion for JNOV” and because
“this court routinely declines to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction where an
adequate remedy by appeal would exist after the issuance of a final judgment that
has proper decretal language.” Id. at 597.
In the instant case, the September 8, 2018 judgment does not “name the party
in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, [or] the party against whom the ruling is
ordered.” Input/Output Marine Systems, 52 So.3d at 916. 4 In addition, the final
amount of damages awarded in favor of Correia cannot be determined from a single
3 This court has “the duty to determine sua sponte whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even when the parties do not raise the issue.” Gabriel v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 16-210, p. 2 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/19/16), 202 So.3d 1184, 1185. Unless the appellate court’s jurisdiction “is properly invoked by a valid final judgment[,]” it cannot determine the merits of an appeal. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 14-506, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/15/14), 151 So.3d 908, 910.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
19-103
FRANK COLLATT AND JENNIFER CORREIA
VERSUS
BARBARA T. BOUDREAUX AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
**********
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20145830, DIV. F HONORABLE DAVID M. SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE
********** PHYLLIS M. KEATY JUDGE
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.
APPEAL SUSPENDED. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Brian M. Caubarreaux Laura B. Knoll Eugene A. Ledet, Jr. Emily Gremillion Brian Caubarreaux & Associates 144 Tunica Drive West Marksville, Louisiana 71351 (318) 253-0900 Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Jennifer Correia J. P. D’Albor Haik, Minivelle & Grubbs 1017 East Dale Street New Iberia, Louisiana 70560 (337) 365-5486 Counsel for Intervenor: Lafayette Surgical Hospital, LLC
Robert Mark Marionneaux, Jr. The Marionneaux Law Firm 660 Saint Ferdinand Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 (225) 330-6679 Counsel for Plaintiff /Appellant: Jennifer Correia
F. Douglas Wimberly Cloyd, Wimberly & Villemarette, LLC 302 La Rue France, Suite 204 Lafayette, Louisiana 70508 (337) 289-6906 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Barbara T. Boudreaux State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company KEATY, Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Jennifer Correia (Correia), appeals a September 17, 2018
judgment on her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). For the
reasons that follow, we suspend the appeal and remand this matter to the trial court
with instructions to issue a judgment containing proper decretal language.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Correia and Frank Collatt (Collatt) filed suit against Barbara T. Boudreaux
(Boudreaux) and her insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
(State Farm), following an automobile accident that occurred on December 5, 2013.
The vehicle being driven by Correia and occupied by Collatt as a guest passenger
was stopped in the drive-through lane at the Chick-Fil-A on Ambassador Caffery
Parkway in Lafayette, Louisiana, when it was rear-ended twice by the vehicle that
Boudreaux was driving.
A review of the record reveals the following facts. Although the same
attorney represented Boudreaux and State Farm, separate answers were filed on
behalf of each. Correia and Collatt filed a motion for summary judgment, which
was not opposed by the defendants, and the trial court entered judgment finding
Boudreaux one hundred percent at fault in causing the accident.1 Interventions were
filed by Alfred Boustany, II, APLC, the attorney who previously represented Correia
and Collatt, and by Lafayette Surgical Hospital, LLC.
Correia’s claims proceeded to trial by jury, and a verdict was returned in her
favor. She was awarded $120,960.04 for past medical expenses; $120,000.00 for
future medical expenses; $50,000.00 for past mental and physical pain and suffering;
$50,000.00 for future mental and physical pain and suffering; $41,600.00 for past
1 Collatt’s claims settled prior to trial and are not at issue in this appeal. lost wages; $20,800.00 for future lost wages; and $40,000.00 for permanent
disability. The jury did not award Correia any damages for permanent scarring and
disfigurement or for loss of enjoyment of life. A judgment in accordance with the
jury’s verdict was signed by the trial court.
Thereafter, Correia filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
which was set for contradictory hearing on August 6, 2018. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court awarded Correia $15,000.00 for scarring and disfigurement,
$25,000.00 for loss of enjoyment of life, and otherwise left untouched the damages
awarded by the jury. Counsel for Boudreaux and State Farm was ordered to prepare
a judgment. On September 17, 2018, the trial court signed the judgment presented
to it. That judgment provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Court, after considering the pleadings filed, argument of counsel, and Louisiana Law, rendered Judgment as follows:
With regard to plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, the award for permanent scarring and disfigurement is increased from $0 to $15,000.00; and the award for loss of enjoyment of life is increased from $0 to $25,000.00. All other damages listed on the Jury Verdict Form remain the same.
The defendants did not appeal either judgment. Correia filed a motion for
devolutive appeal of “the original Judgment rendered by the jury and signed by the
presiding judge on May 24, 2018, as well as the Judgment Notwithstanding the
Verdict signed on September 17, 2018.” When the record was received by this court,
we discovered that the September 17, 2018 judgment did not state the relief granted
or denied, nor did it name the parties cast in judgment. 2 Thereafter, we ordered
2 “A valid judgment must be precise, definite and certain.” Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Techs., Inc., 10-477, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 915. “The result decreed must be spelled out in lucid, unmistakable language.” Id. at 916. “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.” Id.
2 Correia to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken
from a judgment that lacked proper decretal language.3 See Input/Output Marine
Sys., 52 So.3d 909, and Mouton v. AAA Cooper Transp., 17-666, 17-667 (La.App. 3
Cir. 1/10/18), 237 So.3d 594.
In response to the rule to show cause, Correia asks this court to either exercise
its supervisory jurisdiction to render a judgment with appropriate decretal language
or to suspend the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to
sign a judgment containing the proper decretal language. Correia avers that the
defendants do not object to either course of action by this court.
In Mouton, 237 So.2d 594, this court discussed the argument that it should
render a final judgment and then decide the merits of the appeal. Therein, this court
declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction because “the judgment was rendered
after a trial on the merits and after consideration of a motion for JNOV” and because
“this court routinely declines to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction where an
adequate remedy by appeal would exist after the issuance of a final judgment that
has proper decretal language.” Id. at 597.
In the instant case, the September 8, 2018 judgment does not “name the party
in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, [or] the party against whom the ruling is
ordered.” Input/Output Marine Systems, 52 So.3d at 916. 4 In addition, the final
amount of damages awarded in favor of Correia cannot be determined from a single
3 This court has “the duty to determine sua sponte whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even when the parties do not raise the issue.” Gabriel v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 16-210, p. 2 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/19/16), 202 So.3d 1184, 1185. Unless the appellate court’s jurisdiction “is properly invoked by a valid final judgment[,]” it cannot determine the merits of an appeal. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 14-506, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/15/14), 151 So.3d 908, 910. 4 “The specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings or reasons for judgment.” Input/Output Marine Sys., 52 So.3d at 916. See also Perkins v. BBRC Invs., LLC, 14-298 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/17/14), 205 So.3d 930.
3 judgment but must be gleaned from reference to both the May 24, 2018 judgment
rendered in accordance with the jury verdict and the September 8, 2018 judgment
granting in part and denying in part Correia’s motion for JNOV. 5 For those reasons,
we decline to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction to formulate a proper judgment.
Instead, we will stay the appeal and remand this matter to the trial court for the
limited purpose of rendering a proper final judgment as we did in Mouton, 237 So.3d
594.
DECREE
For the reasons given, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of
this appeal because it was taken from a judgment that lacks proper decretal language.
This appeal is suspended, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with
instructions to sign a judgment containing proper decretal language, including the
nature of the relief granted and/or denied, the names of the parties against whom the
judgment is rendered, and a specification of the increase in the award for permanent
scarring and disfigurement and in the award for loss of enjoyment (with a
specification of the other damages awarded by the jury such that the amount awarded
is determinable from the face of the judgment) no later than April 3, 2019. The Clerk
of Court for the Fifteenth Judicial District Court shall forward the judgment so
signed to this court as a supplement to the appellate record.
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.
5 When the amount awarded is not determinable from a judgment, that judgment is ambiguous and “cannot be considered a final judgment.” Perkins, 205 So.3d at 933. 4