Richard C. Bentley v. Lcm Corporation

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 12-1443

RICHARD C. BENTLEY VERSUS LCM CORPORATION, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20112851 HONORABLE EDWARD B. BROUSSARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

J. DAVID PAINTER

JUDGE

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Billy H. Ezell, and J. David Painter, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS.

Ed W. Bankson Post Office Box 53485 Lafayette, LA 70505 (337) 237-4223 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Richard C. Bentley Michael D. Skinner Skinner Law Firm Post Office Box 53146 Lafayette, LA 70505 (337) 354-3030 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: LCM Corporation

Andrea L. West West Law Firm Post Office Box 921 Eunice, LA 70535-0921 (337) 457-8044 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Danny R. Hubbard, II

Danny R. Hubbard Post Office Box 711 Bedford, VA 24523 (540) 314-5995 PRO SE APPELLEE PAINTER, Judge.

This court issued a rule for the Appellant, Richard C. Bentley, to show cause,

by brief only, why the instant appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken

from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling. After considering Appellant’s response,

we dismiss the appeal for the reasons assigned below.

The instant case arises out of a breach of contract claim. In the course of these

proceedings, the Defendants filed a declinatory exception of improper venue.

Following a hearing, the trial court sustained the exception and transferred the case to

another venue. A written judgment was signed on August 20, 2012. Notice of

judgment was mailed on September 27, 2012. The Appellant timely filed a motion

and order for appeal on October 12, 2012. The record in this appeal was lodged on

December 19, 2012.

The trial court’s ruling sustaining the exception of improper venue and

transferring this case to another venue does not decide the merits of this case and is

interlocutory. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841. Therefore, we hereby dismiss the instant

appeal. The Appellant is hereby permitted to file a proper application for writs in

compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4, no later than March 1,

2013. The Appellant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs nor obtain

an order setting a return date pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule

4−3.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS.

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