Trish R. Veronie v. Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 24-465

TRISH R. VERONIE VERSUS JOSEPH VICTOR VAN BROCKLIN MIRELES

**********

APPEAL FROM THE

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C20183897 HONORABLE RONALD D. COX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHARON DARVILLE WILSON

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sharon Darville Wilson, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Guy E. Bradberry, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSSED.

Shane Michael Mouton DA’s Office-Non-Support Div. 1001 W Pinhook Bldg 3, #304 Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 235-0751 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE:

State of Louisiana

Paula B. Bertuccini 225 West Main Street Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 456-2777 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:

Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles

Willliam A. Keaty, II John W. Tilly Keaty & Tilly 2701 Johnston St, Ste 307 Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 347-8995 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE:

Trish R. Veronie

Michael A. Domingue, Jr. Domingue Law Firm, LLC 109 Stewart Street Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 484-1001 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:

Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles

Richard J. Wolff 3801 Canal Street #202 New Orleans, LA 70119 (504) 421-3277 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:

Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles

WILSON, Judge.

On March 8, 2024, the trial court below heard a motion to recuse the honorable Thomas R. Duplantier which had been filed by Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles. The trial court denied said motion, signing the Judgment on April 2, 2024. The Clerk of Court noticed the signing of said Judgment on April 3, 2024. Appellant’s notice of intent to file appeal was filed on June 3, 2024.

Upon the lodging of the record in this appeal, this court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely and as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment, citing La.Code Civ.P. arts. 3942 and 3943, as well as Deville v. Calogero, 96-162 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/24/96), 673 So.2d 1175. Appellant timely filed a response to this court’s rule.

In his response to the rule to show cause, Appellant conceeded that the matter is “premature until the trial court either certifies the judgment below as a final judgment, the district court reconsiders its ruling, or until the entirety of appellant’s motion is heard such that it would be a final judgment. As such, Appellant agree that this appeal should be dismissed without prejudice.” Additionally, Appellant has not shown any good cause why his appeal was not untimely. Accordingly, we find that the appeal was filed untimely and taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory judgment. For the reasons assigned, the appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

APPEAL DISMISSSED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.

Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.