Julia Jackson Versus Kirk P. Usey, Xyz Insurance Company, John and Jane Doe
Julia Jackson Versus Kirk P. Usey, Xyz Insurance Company, John and Jane Doe, No. 20-CA-402 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Feb. 10, 2021).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Input/Output Marine Systems, Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Technologies, Inc. 52 So. 3d 909
- R & R Steel Erectors v. Watson 809 So. 2d 1228
- Faustina Pipe Line Co. v. Broussard 450 So. 2d 24
- McElwee v. McElwee 256 So. 2d 477
- Gorman v. Miller 136 So. 3d 834
- David Band v. First Bankcard Center 650 So. 2d 738
Opinion text
JULIA JACKSON NO. 20-CA-402
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
KIRK P. USEY, XYZ INSURANCE COURT OF APPEAL
COMPANY, JOHN AND JANE DOE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 778-282, DIVISION "F"
HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MENTZ, JUDGE PRESIDING
February 10, 2021
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Robert A. Chaisson, and Hans J. Liljeberg
APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AND REMANDED
HJL
JGG
RAC
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
JULIA JACKSON
James B. Mullaly
LILJEBERG, J.
Plaintiff/Appellant, Julia Jackson, appeals the trial court’s February 5, 2020
judgment denying her motion to confirm a preliminary default. For reasons stated
more fully below, we find the trial court’s February 5, 2020 judgment is not a final
appealable judgment and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal due to lack of appellate
jurisdiction.
On December 1, 2017, plaintiff filed a petition for damages against
defendant, Kirk P. Usey. Defendant was served by domiciliary service on
December 11, 2017. After defendant failed to answer or file other pleadings,
plaintiff moved for a preliminary default, which the trial court entered on January
16, 2018. On March 7, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to set a hearing to confirm the
preliminary default pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1702. After numerous continuances
and delays, the trial court heard plaintiff’s motion to confirm the preliminary
default on January 27, 2020. Plaintiff testified at the hearing and entered certified
copies of her medical records into evidence. The trial court then took the matter
under advisement.
On February 5, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment denying plaintiff’s
motion to confirm the preliminary default. In its reasons for judgment, the trial
court explained that “[w]hile pretermitting whether the defendant was negligent,
the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof to establish,
what injuries, if any, were sustained as a result of a fall on December 3, 2017.”
Before considering the merits in any appeal, appellate courts have the duty
to determine sua sponte whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even when the
parties do not raise the issue. Input/Output Marine Sys. v. Wilson Greatbatch
Techs., Inc., 10-477 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 910. This Court
cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our appellate court jurisdiction is
properly invoked by a valid final judgment. Id. at 915.
20-CA-402 1
Only final judgments and interlocutory judgments expressly provided by law
are appealable. La. C.C.P. art. 2083. A judgment that determines the merits in
whole or in part is a final judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 1841. A judgment that denies
a confirmation of a preliminary default does not determine the merits and is
therefore, interlocutory. R&R Steel Erectors v. D. Watson, 01-1322 (La. App. 3
Cir. 3/6/02), 809 So.2d 1228, 1230 (“We recognize that the refusal to confirm a
default judgment is not by itself a final judgment because the plaintiff’s claims are
not rejected.”); Deville v. Carmouche, 450 So.2d 24, 25 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1984);
McElwee v. McElwee, 256 So.2d 477, 479 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1972); see also
Gorman v. Miller, 12-412 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/13/13), 136 So.3d 834, 839 (treating
the denial of request to confirm a preliminary default as an interlocutory ruling);
Band v. First Bankcard Center, 94-3062 (La. 2/9/95), 650 So.2d 738 (recognizing
that if a plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case, his claims are not rejected and
the case may be remanded for further proceedings.)
Based on the foregoing, we find this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over
this matter. We dismiss the appeal filed by plaintiff/appellant, Julia Jackson,
without prejudice and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AND REMANDED
20-CA-402 2
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
FEBRUARY 10, 2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
20-CA-402
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MENTZ (DISTRICT JUDGE)
JAMES B. MULLALY (APPELLANT)
MAILED
KIRK P. USEY (APPELLEE) JESSICA LACAMBRA MULLALY
517 DUNBAR PLACE (APPELLANT)
GRETNA, LA 70056 ATTORNEY AT LAW
848 SECOND STREET
3RD FLOOR
GRETNA, LA 70053