Jean Scott v. Pamela Mathews

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

08-143

JEAN SCOTT
VERSUS
PAMELA MATHEWS

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2007-4570
HONORABLE GUY ERNEST BRADBERRY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Marc T. Amy, J. David Painter, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Ralph Jerone Williams
Attorney at Law
901 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 700
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 436-1718
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Pamela Mathews

Michelle D. Bradley
Attorney at Law
1501 Common Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 990-0046
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Jean Scott

PAINTER, Judge.

This court issued, sua sponte, a rule ordering the Defendant-Appellant,

Pamela Mathews, to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this matter

should not be dismissed as untimely. Appellant’s response to the rule was due

on February 25, 2008; however, this court did not received a response from

Appellant. For the reasons given herein, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

This case involves allegations of domestic abuse made by Appellee, Jean

Scott, and Appellant, who is the adult daughter of Appellee. On August 12,

2007, Appellee filed a petition for protection from abuse pursuant to

La.R.S.46:2131, et seq. Appellant has allegedly harassed Appellee and

subjected her to verbal and mental abuse. Appellant filed a reconventional

demand accusing Appellee of harassing and physically abusing her.

The trial court issued a temporary restraining order against Appellant on

August 15, 2007. The hearing for a preliminary injunction was originally

scheduled for August 29, 2007, but it was later rescheduled for October 10,

2007. Appellant and her attorney failed to attend the hearing, and the trial

court rendered judgment in favor of Appellee.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 3612(C) provides, in

pertinent part, that “[a]n appeal from an order or judgment relating to a

preliminary injunction must be taken, and any bond required must be

furnished, within fifteen days from the date of the order or judgment.” In the

case at bar, the judgment granting the preliminary injunction was signed on

October 10, 2007. As such, the delays for filing a motion and order for a

devolutive appeal expired on October 25, 2007. However, the record reflects

1

that the motion and order for appeal were not filed into the trial court’s record

until December 10, 2007. Therefore, we hereby dismiss this appeal as

untimely.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rules 2-16.2 and 2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.

2