Leslie Schilling v. Lynn W. Aurich, ph.D.

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 11-1324

LESLIE SCHILLING VERSUS LYNN W. AURICH, PH.D., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-963899 HONORABLE EDWARD D. RUBIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Rick A. Caballero Attorney at Law 7470 Highland Road Baton Rouge, LA 70808 (225) 763-6679 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:

Leslie Schilling

James J. Hautot, Jr. Judice & Adley Post Office Drawer 51769 Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 235-2405 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:

Lynn W. Aurich, Ph.D.

Charter Cypress Behavorial HealthSystems, LLC

PICKETT, Judge.

This court issued a rule ordering the Plaintiff-Appellant, Leslie Schilling, to show cause why her appeal, bearing this court’s docket number 11-1324, should not be dismissed as premature. The Appellant has filed a response to the rule. For the reasons given below, we hereby dismiss this appeal.

This appeal was consolidated with another appeal, which is filed under this court’s docket number 11-1325, bearing the same caption. When the appeals were lodged in this court, it appeared that the Appellant was seeking an appeal with regard to both of the consolidated cases. While the appeal record indicated that a final judgment had been rendered on the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial in the case 11-1325, there was no indication that a final judgment had been rendered with regard to the case 11-1324. Therefore, this court issued a rule for Appellant to show cause why the instant appeal should not be dismissed for having been taken prematurely.

In her response to this court’s rule to show cause order, Appellant asserts that she is only taking an appeal in docket number 11-1325 and is not taking an appeal in the instant case, docket number 11-1324. However, since the appeal in 11-1324 has been received by this court and docketed but the trial court has not disposed of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial, we hereby dismiss this appeal as premature. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2087(D). Egle v. Egle, 05-531 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/8/06), 923 So.2d 780.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rules 2-16.2 and 2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.