Amanda Jones v. Citizens For A New Louisiana, Michael Lunsford, And Ryan Thames

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 27, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
AMANDA JONES
VS.
CITIZENS FOR A NEW LOUISIANA,
MICHAEL LUNSFORD, AND RYAN THAMES
No. 2024-C-00945
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Amanda Jones - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish
of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Number(s) 175021, Court of Appeal, First
Circuit, Number(s) 2023 CA 0654;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 27, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents.
McCallum, J., dissents.
PDG
JLW
JTK
12/27/2024 "See News Release 059 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.
2024-C-00945
A
MANDA JONES
VS.
CITIZENS FOR A NEW LOUISIANA, MICHAEL LUNSFORD, AND
RYAN THAMES
On W
rit of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Livingston
P
ER CURIAM
We are called upon to determine whether the court of appeal erred in finding
plaintiff’s appeal of an October 11, 2022 judgment grant ing defendants’ special
motion to strike was untimely. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment
of the court of appeal and remand the case for consideration of the entire appeal on
the merits.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Plaintiff, Amanda Jones, filed a petition for damages for defamation and
requested injunctive relief against defendants, Citizens for a New Louisiana,
Michael Lunsford, and Ryan Thames. In response, defendants filed special motions
to strike plaintiff’s petition, pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 971.
1
1 La. Code Civ. P. art. 971 states, in relevant part:
A.(1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that
person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech
under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with
a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless
the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability
of success on the claim.
***
B. In any action subject to Paragraph A of this Article, a prevailing
party on a special motion to strike shall be awarded reasonable
attorney fees and costs.
12/27/24

2

By judgment dated October 11, 2022, the trial court granted defendants’
special motions to strike plaintiff’s petition and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with
prejudice. The judgment further provided that a hearing would be set for November
21, 2022 to determine statutory attorney fees in accordance with La. Code Civ. P.
art. 971(B).
Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial. As a result, the parties agreed to defer
the motion for attorney fees and costs. By judgment dated December 14, 2022, the
trial court denied the motion for new trial and ordered the motion to award attorney
fees and costs to be reset.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a stipulation regarding attorney fees and
costs. On March 2, 2023, the trial court signed a “Final Judgment,” wherein the
court accepted the parties’ stipulation as to attorney fees and costs. The judgment
provided, in pertinent part:
This judgment shall be deemed final, the Court having
already resolved the merits of this case by judgments
signed October 11, 2022 and December 14, 2022, and
there being no remaining issues to resolve.

Plaintiff filed a motion for a devolutive appeal on March 13, 2023. According
to plaintiff, during the course of oral argument, the judges of the court of appeal, sua
sponte, raised questions concerning whether the 2021 amendment to La. Code Civ.
P. art. 2088 (A)(10)2 made the October 11, 2022 judgment final and immediately
appealable. The court permitted the parties to file supplemental briefs on this issue.

2 La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088 states:
A. The jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the case
reviewable under the appeal is divested, and that of the appellate
court attaches, on the granting of the order of appeal and the
timely filing of the appeal bond, in the case of a suspensive
appeal or on the granting of the order of appeal, in the case of a
devolutive appeal. Thereafter, the trial court has jurisdiction in
the case only over those matters not reviewable under the appeal,
including the right to do any of the following:
***
(10) Set and tax costs, expert witness fees, and attorney fees.

3

On January 26, 2024, the c ourt of appeal, in a divided opinion, affirmed the
March 2, 2023 judgment on attorney fees, but declined to reach the merits of the
October 11, 2022 judgment on the ground the appeal of this judgment was untimely.
Jones v. Citizens for a New Louisiana, 2023-0654 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/26/24), 387 So.
3d 1. The majority of the court found the October 11, 2022 judgment was a final
and immediately appealable judgment because it resolved all issues, except attorney
fees and costs, which the trial court retained jurisdiction to set under the recent
amendment to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088 (A)(10). Accordingly, the majority found
plaintiff’s appeal of the October 11, 2022 judgment was untimely and declined to
consider this portion of the appeal. The court further held the appeal of the March
2, 2023 judgment on attorney fees and costs was timely, but found plaintiff raised
no arguments with respect to this judgment; therefore, the court of appeal affirmed
it.
One judge dissented from the court’s refusal to consider the October 11, 2022
judgment. The dissenting judge reasoned that the granting of a special motion to
strike pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 971 without resolution of attorney fees has
been consistently characterized as an interlocutory judgment, and the 2021
amendment to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088 did not change the character of the
judgment.
Upon plaintiff’s application, we now exercise our supervisory jurisdiction to
consider whether the appeal of the October 11, 2022 judgment was timely.

DISCUSSION

Under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1841, a final judgment is a judgment that
“determines the merits in whole or in part,” and an interlocutory judgment is one
that “does not determine the merits but only preliminary matters in the course of the
action.” The October 11, 2022 judgment clearly grants defendants’ special motions

4

to strike and dismisses “with full prejudice the claims of Plaintiff against Defendants
Ryan Thames, Citizens for a New Louisiana, and Michael Lunsford.” However, the
judgment does not make a mandatory award of attorney fees as required by La. Code
Civ. P. art. 971(B) but instead reserves that determination for a later hearing.
In considering similar judgments rendered under La. Code Civ. P. art. 971,
the appellate jurisprudence has uniformly characterized judgments granting a special
motion to strike but not awarding attorney fees as interlocutory in nature. See Alost
v. Lawler, 2020-0832, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/2/21), 326 So. 3d 1255, 1260-61,
writ denied, 2021-00941 (La. 10/19/21), 326 So. 3d 256; Samuel v. Remy , 2015-
0464, 2016 WL 4591885 at *5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/31/16)
(unpub.), writ denied, 2016-
1785 (La. 11/29/16), 211 So.3d 387; Davis v. Benton, 2003-0851, p. 6 (La. App. 1
Cir. 2/23/04), 874 So. 2d 185, 188 n.1.
However, these opinions involved facts which arose prior to the 2021
amendment to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088. Effective August 1, 2021, La. Code Civ.
P. art. 2088(A)(10) now provides:
A. The jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the
case reviewable under the appeal is divested, and that of
the appellate court attaches, on the granting of the order of
appeal and the timely filing of the appeal bond, in the case
of a suspensive appeal or on the granting of the order of
appeal, in the case of a devolutive appeal. Thereafter, the
trial court has jurisdiction in the case only over those
matters not reviewable under the appeal, including the
right to do any of the following:

***

(10) Set and tax costs, expert witness fees, and attorney
fees. [emphasis added].

The official revision comments explain this article allows attorney fees to be
set while an appeal is pending:
The amendment to Subparagraph (A)(10) of this Article
clarifies that the trial court retains jurisdiction for purposes
of setting attorney fees after an appeal has been taken from
the initial judgment. Trial courts award reasonable

5

attorney fees in many judgments, but often these
judgments are appealed before the attorney fees are
set. With this amendment, it is no longer necessary for
an appellate court to dismiss an appeal in order to
allow the trial court to set the amount of the attorney
fees, because the trial court has jurisdiction to set
attorney fees while the appeal is pending. [emphasis
added].

While La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088(A)(10) clearly provides that the trial court
retains jurisdiction to set attorney fees while an appeal is pending, the legislature
made no corresponding changes to La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(A) which would make
such partial judgments immediately appea lable. Therefore, we must conclude that
a partial judgment granting a special motion to strike but not awarding attorney fees
remains governed by La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B), which provides:
(1) When a court renders a partial judgment or partial
summary judgment or sustains an exception in part, as
to one or more but less than all of the claims, demands,
issues, or theories against a party, whether in an
original demand, reconventional demand, cross-claim,
third-party claim, or intervention, the judgment shall
not constitute a final judgment unless it is designated
as a final judgment by the court after an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay.

(2) In the absence of such a determination and
designation, any such order or decision shall not
constitute a final judgment for the purpose of an
immediate appeal and may be revised at any time
prior to rendition of the judgment adjudicating all the
claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
[emphasis added]

Laws on the same subject matter must be interpreted in reference to each
other. La. Civ. Code art. 13; Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 2011-0097, p.12
(La. 12/16/11), 79 So. 3d 987, 997. Where two statutes deal with the same subject
matter, they should be harmonized if possible, as it is the duty of the courts, in the
construction of statutes, to harmonize and reconcile laws. South Lafourche Levee
Dist. v. Jarreau, 2016 -0788, p. 8 (La. 3/31/17), 217 So. 3d 298, 304 ; LeBreton v.

6

Rabito, 97-2221, p. 7 (La.7/8/98), 714 So. 2d 1226, 1229; Chappuis v. Reggie, 222
La. 35, 44, 62 So. 2d 92, 95 (1952).
Under the facts of this case, we have little difficulty in harmonizing the
provisions of La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088(A)(10) and La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915. By
operation of La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B)(1), the October 11, 2022 judgment was a
partial judgment because it did not resolve all issues in the case. As such, it could
not constitute a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal “ unless it is
designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that there
is no just reason for delay.” Had the trial court made such a determination, plaintiff
would have been entitled to take an immediate appeal, and the trial court would have
retained jurisdiction under La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088(A)(10) to adjudicate the issue
of attorney fees during the pendency of the appeal.
However, it is undisputed the trial court did not designate the October 11,
2022 judgment as immediately appealable under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B)(1) .
Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B)(2), the October 11, 2022 judgment
therefore remained in an interlocutory posture until March 2, 2023, when the trial
court signed a final judgment adjudicating all claims.
Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal of the March 2, 2023 final judgment. This
appeal properly placed the October 11, 2022 interlocutory judgment before the court
of appeal. Therefore, the court of appeal erred in failing to address the merits of
plaintiff’s appeal with respect to the October 11, 2022 judgment.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
January 26, 2024 judgment of the court of appeal is vacated and set aside. The case
is remanded to the court of appeal to consider all assignments of error raised in the
March 13, 2023 devolutive appeal filed by Amanda Jones.