Arlene Squyres v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, Inc.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., December 6, 2006
Arlene Squyres v. Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, Inc., No. CA-0006-0744 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2006).
Opinion text
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
06-744
ARLENE SQUYRES, ETC.
VERSUS
OUR LADY OF LOURDES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ET
AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2004-5872
HONORABLE PATRICK L. MICHOT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
GLENN B. GREMILLION
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, and
Glenn B. Gremillion, Judges.
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.
Terry L. Rowe
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 3323
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 232-4744
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Karen Kemzuro
Kenneth Warren DeJean
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 4325
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 235-5294
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Arlene Squyres
Patrick Manning Wartelle
Roy, Bivins, Judice, & Henke
Post Office Drawer Z
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 233-7430
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, Inc.
Karen Kemzuro
Monique Joseph
Catherine Vaughtsteinmann
GREMILLION, Judge.
The defendants-appellees, Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical
Center, Inc., Monique Joseph, and Catharine Vaughtsteinmann (movers), move
to dismiss the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant, Arlene Squyres, individually
and on behalf of the Estate of Joseph Squyres. For the reasons given below,
we deny the motion.
The plaintiff filed the instant medical malpractice action against Our
Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center, Inc.; Karen Kemzuro, L.P.N.;
Monique Joseph, L.P.N.; Catharine Vaughtsteinman, R.N.; and Dr. Barry J.
Henry. In the course of this litigation, the movers filed a motion for summary
judgment which the trial court granted. A judgment dismissing these parties
from this case was signed by the trial court on November 28, 2005, and notice
of the judgment was mailed by the clerk’s office on November 30, 2005. The
plaintiff filed a motion for a devolutive appeal from this judgment on
December 22, 2005, and the trial court signed the order granting the appeal on
January 3, 2006.
The record in this appeal was lodged in this court on June 9, 2006. On
June 24, 2006, the movers filed the instant motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s
appeal.
The movers argue that at the time that the plaintiff filed her motion for
appeal, the appeal was premature. Movers assert that the judgment appealed
was only a partial, final judgment pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915 and that
the judgment was not designated as immediately appealable by the trial court
pursuant to paragraph B of this article. Moreover, the movers contend that
since the last remaining party defendant to this action was dismissed by a
judgment signed by the trial court on May 3, 2006, notice of which was sent
2
on May 9, 2006, the appeal delays have now run as to this judgment, and
therefore, the plaintiff cannot now file a timely appeal.
In pertinent part, La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915 reads:
A. A final judgment may be rendered and signed by the court,
even though it may not grant the successful party or parties all of the
relief prayed for, or may not adjudicate all of the issues in the case,
when the court:
(1) Dismisses the suit as to less than all of the parties, defendants,
third party plaintiffs, third party defendants, or intervenors.
***
Furthermore, La.Code Civ.P. art. 1911 states:
Except as otherwise provided by law, every final judgment shall
be signed by the judge. For the purpose of an appeal as provided in
Article 2083, no appeal may be taken from a final judgment until the
requirement of this Article has been fulfilled. No appeal may be taken
from a partial final judgment under Article 1915(B) until the judgment
has been designated a final judgment under Article 1915(B). An appeal
may be taken from a final judgment under Article 1915(A) without
the judgment being so designated.
Emphasis added.
The judgment at issue in the instant motion dismissed all claims plaintiff
had against movers, with prejudice. Pursuant to the above articles, the
judgment was immediately appealable without the necessity of a designation
by the trial court. Therefore, we hereby deny the motion to dismiss the appeal
at movers’ cost.
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.
3