Daneric Anderson v. Kenneth Briggs, Abc Insurance Company, Ports America Louisiana, L.L.C., Xyz Insurance Company, and Jkl Insurance Company

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DANERIC ANDERSON * NO. 2024-CA-0232

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
KENNETH BRIGGS, ABC *
INSURANCE COMPANY, FOURTH CIRCUIT
PORTS AMERICA *
LOUISIANA, L.L.C., XYZ STATE OF LOUISIANA
INSURANCE COMPANY, AND *******
JKL INSURANCE COMPANY

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2017-11757, DIVISION “F-14”
Honorable Jennifer M. Medley, Judge
******
Judge Dale N. Atkins
******
(Court composed of Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge
Dale N. Atkins)

Scott A. Soule
Frank J. Torres
Josephine H. Azuma
BLUE WILLIAMS, L.L.C.
3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 900
Metairie, LA 70002

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS, Ports America Louisiana, L.L.C., and
Kenneth Briggs

Raymond C. Lewis
Walter P. Maestri
DEUTSCH KERRIGAN, L.L.P.
755 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES, Admiral Security Services, Inc. and
Admiral Security Holdings, LLC

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS
SEPTEMBER 20, 2024

DNA

PAB

TGC

This a tort case involving an automobile accident. Appellants, Ports America

Louisiana, LLC (“Ports America”), and Kenneth Briggs (“Mr. Briggs”)

(hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as “Appellants”), seek review of the

trial court’s March 21, 2023 judgment, which granted the Motion for Summary

Judgment filed by Appellees, Admiral Security Services, Inc. (“ASSI”), and

Admiral Security Holdings, LLC (“ASH”) (collectively “Admiral”). For the

following reasons, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice, and we remand this

matter to the trial court with instructions.

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL
HISTORY

On December 8, 2017, Daneric Anderson (“Mr. Anderson”) filed a Petition

for Damages (“Petition”) in Orleans Parish Civil District Court. In his Petition, Mr.

Anderson alleged that on December 9, 2016, he sustained injuries during an

automobile accident that occurred at the Port of New Orleans. In particular, Mr.

Anderson stated that Mr. Briggs, who was an employee of Ports America and was

operating within the course and scope of his employment, attempted to make a left-

hand turn and struck Mr. Anderson’s vehicle. In his Petition, Mr. Anderson named

1

Mr. Briggs, Ports America, and Ports America’s liability and uninsured motorist

insurers as defendants.

In response to Mr. Anderson’s Petition, Ports America filed an answer on

April 6, 2018, and then a third-party demand against ASSI, Mr. Anderson’s

employer, on September 14, 2020. In the third-party demand, Ports America

alleged that it was entitled to full indemnification and reimbursement from ASSI

based on a contract between the parties. Then, on December 21, 2021, Ports

America filed another third-party demand naming ASH as a third-party defendant.

Subsequently, on February 3, 2023, Admiral filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment and asserted therein that the indemnity provision of the contract was

inapplicable to the defense and indemnity of actions attributed to Ports America’s

own negligence. The trial court conducted a hearing on Admiral’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on March 3, 2023. Thereafter, on March 21, 2023, the trial

court granted Admiral’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the third-

party demands filed by Ports America against Admiral with prejudice.

Following the trial court’s judgment, on March 28, 2023, Ports America and

Mr. Briggs timely filed a Motion for New Trial regarding the trial court’s grant of

Admiral’s Motion for Summary Judgment.1 Then, on May 12, 2023, Ports America

and Mr. Briggs filed a Motion for Devolutive Appeal, which the trial court granted

in a May 16, 2023 order. On January 3, 2024, because the record on appeal did not

1 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1974 states that “[a] party may

file a motion for a new trial not later than seven days, exclusive of legal holidays,
after the clerk has mailed or the sheriff has served the notice of judgment as
required by [La. C.C.P. art.] 1913.” The trial court signed the judgment granting
Admiral’s Motion for Summary Judgment on March 21, 2023, and issued the
notice of signing of judgment on the same day. Ports America and Mr. Briggs filed
their Motion for New Trial on March 28, 2023, which was within the seven-day
time delay specified in La. C.C.P. art. 1974. Accordingly, the Motion for New
Trial was timely filed.

2

reflect that the trial court had ruled on the Motion for New Trial, this Court issued

an order to the trial court to supplement the record with the judgment relative to the

Motion for New Trial. Anderson v. Briggs, 2023-0483, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir.

1/10/24), 381 So.3d 165, 167 n.1. The following day, January 4, 2024, this Court

received a supplement from the trial court, which was titled “Per Curiam” and

explained “[u]pon a review of the record in this matter, this [c]ourt discovered, due

to an oversight, the parties did not file nor did this [c]ourt prepare the judgment on

this Motion. As such, the Court now issues this Judgment and Notice of Signing of

Judgment.” On January 10, 2024, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ports

America and Mr. Briggs without prejudice. Anderson, 2023-0483, p. 2, 381 So.3d

at 167. As this Court explained, “[o]nce the trial court signed the order granting the

appeal, it divested itself of jurisdiction and lacked authority to later issue a

judgment and notice of signing of [judgment] on a motion for new trial.” Id. at p.

2, 381 So.3d at 167 n.1.

After this Court rendered its decision in the prior appeal, which was lodged

with this Court as 2023-CA-0483 Daneric Anderson v. Kenneth Briggs, et al.

(hereinafter “2023-0483”), the trial court filed a three-page supplement in that

matter.2 The first page is a Notice of Signing of Judgment dated January 22, 2024,

and signed by “LaTonia R. Thompson.” The Notice of Signing of Judgment states:

“SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT RE [MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL] filed

3.28.23” and “HEARD 3.31.23.” Regarding the latter notation, neither the record

in 2023-0483 nor the record in the matter sub judice, which was lodged with this

Court as 2024-CA-0232 Daneric Anderson v. Kenneth Briggs, et al. (hereinafter

2 On May 29, 2024, this Court issued an Order, which adopted and
incorporated the appellate record from 2023-0483 into the appellate record in
2024-CA-0232 Daneric Anderson v. Kenneth Briggs, et al.

3

“2024-0232”), contains a transcript for a March 31, 2023 hearing. The second page

of the supplement is titled “Second Amended Judgment,” and it is also dated

January 22, 2024. The Second Amended Judgment states that the trial court denied

the Motion for New Trial filed by Ports America and Mr. Briggs, but the Second

Amended Judgment is not signed by the trial court judge. The third page is titled

“Second Amended Per Curiam,” and it is also dated January 22, 2024. The trial

court judge signed the Second Amended Per Curiam. Thereafter, on January 31,

2024, Ports America and Mr. Briggs filed another Motion for Devolutive Appeal,

which the trial court granted in a February 2, 2024 order.

DISCUSSION

Prior to addressing the merits of an appeal, an appellate court has a duty to

determine sua sponte if its jurisdiction has been invoked by a valid, final judgment.

LZM Props., LLC v. Priv. Connection Prop., Inc., 2023-0707, 0708, p. 12 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 4/25/24), 390 So.3d 861, 870 (citing Safford v. New Orleans Fire

Dep’t, 2023-0495, p. 18 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/1/24), 384 So.3d 909, 924-25).

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2162 establishes that

“[a]n appeal can be dismissed at any time . . . for lack of jurisdiction of the

appellate court.” According to La. C.C.P. art. 2087(D), “[a]n order of appeal is

premature if granted before the court disposes of all timely filed motions for new

trial.” Additionally, as pertinent to this appeal, La. C.C.P. art. 1918(A) provides:

A final judgment in accordance with [La. C.C.P. art.] 1841 shall be
identified as such by appropriate language; shall be signed and dated;
and shall, in its decree, identify the name of the party in whose favor
the relief is awarded, the name of the party against whom the relief is
awarded, and the relief that is awarded.

(Emphasis added.)

4

In Cleary v. Owens, the appellants filed a “Motion for New trial and, in the

Alternative, Remittitur.” 2007-942, p. 1 (La. App. 3 Cir. 9/19/07), 966 So.2d 688,

689. In response, the trial court did not hold a hearing on the motion, and merely

“wrote the word ‘denied’ diagonally across the proposed order to show cause.” Id.

Thereafter, the trial court granted separate motions for appeal filed by the

appellants. Id. In ruling on the appeals, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of

Appeal (“Third Circuit”) considered the appellants’ arguments that “because the

trial judge implicitly manifested [an] intent to deny their motion for new trial,” the

court should liberally apply La. C.C.P. art. 1918, as well as the appellants’

argument that the appeals should be maintained in the interest of judicial

efficiency. Id. at p. 2, 966 So.2d at 689. Nevertheless, in interpreting La. C.C.P.

arts. 1918 and 2087, as well as that court’s prior opinion in Egle v. Egle, 2005-

0531 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/8/06), 923 So.2d 780, the Third Circuit held that the

notation “Denied” written on the rule to show cause order did not constitute a valid

judgment. Id. at p. 3, 966 So.2d 688, 690. Because the trial court had not

conducted a hearing on the Motion for New Trial and, in the Alternative,

Remittitur, and because the Third Circuit found that the trial court had not properly

disposed of the motion, the Third Circuit concluded that the appeal orders were

premature as the trial court was never divested of its jurisdiction. Id. Accordingly,

the Third Circuit further concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeals, and

the Third Circuit dismissed the appeals and remanded the matter for the trial court

to consider the Motion for New Trial and, in the Alternative, Remittitur. Id.

Though the “Denied” notation on the rule to show cause orders in Cleary

and Egle is not the exact same as the unsigned judgment we have in 2024-0232, we

nonetheless find Cleary and Egle analogous to the matter sub judice. This is

5

because in all three cases—Cleary, Egle, and 2024-0232—the bottom line is that

the record lacked and lacks a judgment that comports with La. C.C.P. art. 1918.

Though page two of the supplement filed in 2023-0483 (the unsigned judgment)

indicates the trial judge’s intent to deny the Motion for New Trial filed by Ports

America and Mr. Briggs, as in Cleary and Egle, the trial court’s intent does not and

cannot override the fact that the document in question does not constitute a valid

judgment per La. C.C.P. art. 1918(A). That is, the language of La. C.C.P. art.

1918—rather than the trial court’s intent—governs, and intent is insufficient in the

face of non-compliance with La. C.C.P. art. 1918. In this case, the non-compliance

with La. C.C.P. art. 1918 is because the trial court did not sign the judgment.

Looking beyond that supplement, the records in 2023-0483 and 2024-0232 are

devoid of a judgment signed by the trial court sometime between January 10, 2024

(when this Court rendered its prior Opinion in 2023-483), and February 2, 2024

(when the trial court granted Ports America and Mr. Briggs’ Motion for Devolutive

Appeal in 2024-0232). Moreover, despite the notation on page one of the

supplement (the Notice of Judgment) that the trial court held a hearing on the

Motion for New Trial on March 31, 2023, the appellate records in 2023-0483 and

2024-0232 are also devoid of any March 31, 2023 hearing transcript, which might

have established the trial court’s ruling on the Motion for New Trial. See Simon v.

Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 138 So.2d 465, 466 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1962) (holding

that “[t]here is no requirement that the trial court’s denial of an application for a

new trial be made in writing”). Even assuming, arguendo, that the trial court held a

hearing on March 31, 2023, at which it orally denied the Motion for New Trial

and/or the trial court signed a judgment denying the Motion for New Trial

sometime during the appropriate date range (January 10, 2024 - February 2, 2024),

6

neither a hearing transcript nor a signed judgment to this effect is in the record

before us. To this end, we note that as an appellate court, we are “a court of record

and can only review what is contained in the record on review.” JoAnn Place v.

Ricard, 2022-0456, p. 12 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/27/22), 356 So.3d 518, 527 (quoting

NOLA 180 v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 2012-0072, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/16/12),

94 So.3d 886, 888).

In sum, we find that the unsigned January 22, 2024 judgment does not

constitute a valid judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1918. Because this was not a final

judgment properly disposing of the Motion for New Trial and the record fails to

establish that the trial court orally ruled on the Motion for New Trial at a hearing,

we find that the appeal order signed on February 2, 2024, was premature and that

the trial court was not divested of its jurisdiction per La. C.C.P. art. 2087(D).

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and conclude that the appeal

must be dismissed without prejudice. Any party may seek appellate review at a

time when this matter becomes ripe for appeal without paying additional court

costs. Further, we remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to issue a

valid judgment on the Motion for New Trial filed by Ports America and Mr.

Briggs.

7

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Appellants’ appeal without prejudice.

We remand this case to the trial court with instructions to issue a valid, signed

judgment on the Motion for New Trial filed by Ports America and Mr. Briggs. Any

party may seek appellate review when this matter becomes ripe for appeal and

need not pay this Court’s costs again.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS

8