Kaitlyn Lebouef Aguillard v. Caleb K. Aguillard

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 20-64

KAITLYN LEBOUEF AGUILLARD VERSUS CALEB K. AGUILLARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE

TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 18-C-5082-A HONORABLE JAMES PAUL DOHERTY JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy H. Ezell and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

MOTION TO SUSPEND BRIEFING DEADLINES DENIED.

Jack Derrick Miller Attorney at Law P. O. Drawer 1650 Crowley, Louisiana 70526 (337) 788-0768 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:

Caleb K. Aguillard

Dyan Schnaars Attorney at Law 3639 Ambassador Caffery # 333 Lafayette, Louisiana 70503 (337) 534-4326 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:

Kaitlyn Lebouef Aguillard

Geralyn Siefker Attorney at Law 210 West Main Street Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 (337) 534-4326 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:

Kaitlyn Lebouef Aguillard

Caleb Kent Aguillard Attorney at Law 141 South 6th Street Eunice, Louisiana 70535 (337) 457-9331 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:

Caleb K. Aguillard

COOKS, Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellee, Caitlyn Lebouef (formerly, Caitlyn Lebouef Aquillard)

moves this court to suspend the briefing deadlines for the instant appeal. For the reasons given herein, we deny the motion.

This case involves domestic proceedings between Plaintiff and Defendant, Caleb Kent Aquillard. Plaintiff notes that in addition to the instant appeal, there is also another appeal pending in this case under this court’s docket number CA19-757. Via appeal number 19-757, Defendant seeks review of a July 10, 2019 judgment whereby the trial court granted a protective order against him under the Domestic Abuse Assistance Act, La.R.S. 46:2131, et seq. Via the instant appeal, Defendant seeks review of a November 15, 2019 judgment whereby the trial court granted the parties a divorce pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 103(5) and granted a non-expiring injunction pursuant to La.R.S. 9:372.1, prohibiting the Defendant from harassing Plaintiff.

Plaintiff argues that the briefing deadlines for the filing of the appellate briefs in the instant appeal should be suspended until after this court has rendered its ruling in the appeal which has been filed under docket number 19-757 because the instant appeal could be rendered moot if this court issues a ruling in appeal number 19-757 upholding the trial court’s July 10, 2019 issuance of the injunction pursuant to La.R.S. 46:2136. Plaintiff contends that if necessary, the briefing deadlines for the instant appeal can be re-fixed after this court has rendered a ruling for appeal number 19-757.

However, Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion to suspend the briefing deadlines for the instant appeal. Defendant asserts that the two judgments at issue in the two appeals are independent of one another and rely on two separate sources of law. Defendant maintains that although he has no history of violence, the trial court has imposed a lifetime injunction against him based on Plaintiff’s allegedly false claims of abuse. Defendant contends that the non-expiring injunction that is at issue

2

in the instant appeal permanently labels him as a domestic abuser, deprives him of his constitutional right to bear arms, and impinges on his freedom of speech. Thus, Defendant argues that delaying the instant appeal will not serve the interest of justice, but rather, would be unnecessarily punitive and unjustifiably prejudicial for him.

We note that Defendant has correctly pointed out that the instant appeal and the appeal filed under docket number 19-757 involve two separate protective orders which have been issued pursuant to two distinct statutory provisions. We decline to delay the progress of the instant appeal based on speculation as to how this court will resolve the appeal that has been filed under docket number 19-757. Therefore, at this time, we hereby deny Plaintiff’s motion to suspend the briefing deadlines for the instant appeal.

MOTION TO SUSPEND BRIEFING DEADLINES DENIED.

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