Michael L. Glass v. City of Oberlin

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 11-1266

MICHAEL L. GLASS

VERSUS

CITY OF OBERLIN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. C-2011-198
HONORABLE PATRICIA C. COLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY H. EZELL

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Billy H. Ezell, and J. David Painter, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Errol David Deshotels
Deshotels, Mouser & Deshotels
Post Office Box 399
Oberlin, LA 70655-0399
(337) 639-4309
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
City of Oberlin

Wilbert Joseph Saucier, Jr.
Attorney at Law
2220 Shreveport Highway
Pineville, LA 71360
(318) 473-4146
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Michael L. Glass

EZELL, Judge.

This court issued a rule ordering the Plaintiff-Appellant, Michael L. Glass, to

show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-

appealable interlocutory order. The Plaintiff has filed a response to the rule to show

cause. For the reasons given below, we hereby dismiss this appeal.

In this case, the Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Oberlin alleging that he

was illegally convicted of speeding by the Mayor of Oberlin. The Defendant filed an

exception of no cause of action. The judgment at issue granted the Defendant’s

exception of no cause of action, but failed to either dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim or

allow amendment of the claim pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 934. Therefore, we

find that this judgment is insufficient for this court’s review.

In State v. White, 05-718 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1144, 1146, citing

Jenkins v. Recovery Technology Investors, 02-1788 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/27/03), 858

So.2d 598, 600, this court stated:

A valid judgment must be precise, definite, and certain.
Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002-0045, p. 3
(La.App. 1st Cir.12/20/02), 836 So.2d 364, 365; Davis v.
Farm Fresh Food Supplier, 2002-1401, p. 4 (La.App. 1st
Cir.3/28/03), 844 So.2d 352, 353. A final appealable
judgment must contain decretal language, and it must name
the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party
against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is
granted or denied. See Carter v. Williamson Eye Center,
2001-2016 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/27/02), 837 So.2d 43.

In the instant case, we find that the trial court’s judgment is not clear in the

relief that it is granting. Therefore, without a definitive ruling from the trial court, the

judgment at issue does not constitute a final appealable judgment, and this court lacks

jurisdiction to review this matter. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and remand

this matter to the trial court for reformation of the judgment. In the event that an

appropriate judgment is obtained, a new appeal may be filed at that time.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

2