DIONISIO GONZALEZ, ET AL.
CAREY LESHAWN JIMMERSON, ET AL.
FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST.
MARTIN, NO. 79979 HONORABLE LORI A. LANDRY, DISTRICT JUDGE
Glenn Marcantel, Jr. for Plaintiff/Appellant: Gregorio
Thomas Strenge for Defendants/Appellees: Carey LaShawn
Jimmerson; Process Piping Materials, Inc.; and United Fire
& Casualty Company
composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Billy
H. Ezell, Judges.
R. COOKS JUDGE
court issued a rule ordering Appellant, Gregorio Gonzalez, to
show cause, by brief only, why his appeal should not be
dismissed for having been taken from a judgment lacking
proper decretal language. See State v. White, 05-718
(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1144. For the reasons that
follow, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand
the matter to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 1, 2013, Dionisio Gonzalez (Dionisio), filed a
petition for damages naming Carey LaShawn Jimmerson
(Jimmerson); Process Piping Materials, Inc. (Process Piping);
and United Fire & Casualty Company (United) as
Defendants. On or about May 20, 2013, a first supplemental
and amending petition was filed to add Gregorio Gonzalez
(Gregorio) as a plaintiff. The suit arose out of an
automobile accident that occurred on or about March 29, 2012.
Dionisio was driving a vehicle in which Gregorio was a
passenger when the vehicle was allegedly struck on its rear
bumper by a truck with a gooseneck trailer attached. That
truck was driven by Jimmerson, owned by Process Piping, and
insured by United.
settled all of his claims, and said claims were dismissed by
a motion and order of partial dismissal signed on October 19,
2015. Thereafter, Defendants filed an exception of
prescription as to Gregorio's claims. The exception was
heard and taken under advisement. On July 13, 2016, the trial
court issued written reasons for judgment and granted the
exception based on a finding that Gregorio's petition did
not relate back to the original petition filed by Dionisio. A
judgment sustaining the exception was signed on July 13,
2016. The judgment also assessed costs against Gregorio.
However, the judgment did not dismiss Gregorio's claims
filed a motion for devolutive appeal. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal based on Gregorio's alleged
failure to pay the estimated costs to prepare the record.
Gregorio then obtained an order to proceed in forma pauperis.
the record was lodged in this court, a rule was issued
ordering Gregorio to show cause why his appeal should not be
dismissed for the above-stated reason.
rule to show cause order indicated that Gregorio was to show
cause, if there was any, why the appeal should not be
dismissed as having been taken from a judgment lacking
decretal language. Appellant contends that a judgment
sustaining an exception of prescription is a final appealable
judgment and cites Estate of Patout v. City of New
Iberia, 01-151 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/27/01), 791 So.2d 741,
for that contention. Appellant goes on to assert that the
judgment at issue meets the requirements of Thomas v.
Lafayette Parish Sch. Sys., 13-91, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir.
3/6/13), 128 So.3d 1055, 1056, because "Judge
Landry's judgment dismissed Gregorio Gonzalez's case
in its entirety on the ground that, as per her Reasons for
Judgment, it was not timely filed, did not relate back to the
originally filed petition of Dionisio Gonzalez, and is
jurisprudence is clear that "[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 ...