Richard C. Bentley v. Lcm Corporation

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 12-1443

RICHARD C. BENTLEY
VERSUS
LCM CORPORATION, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20112851
HONORABLE EDWARD B. BROUSSARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

J. DAVID PAINTER

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Billy H. Ezell, and J. David Painter, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO
FILE AN APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS.

Ed W. Bankson
Post Office Box 53485
Lafayette, LA 70505
(337) 237-4223
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Richard C. Bentley

Michael D. Skinner
Skinner Law Firm
Post Office Box 53146
Lafayette, LA 70505
(337) 354-3030
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
LCM Corporation

Andrea L. West
West Law Firm
Post Office Box 921
Eunice, LA 70535-0921
(337) 457-8044
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Danny R. Hubbard, II

Danny R. Hubbard
Post Office Box 711
Bedford, VA 24523
(540) 314-5995
PRO SE APPELLEE

PAINTER, Judge.

This court issued a rule for the Appellant, Richard C. Bentley, to show cause,

by brief only, why the instant appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken

from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling. After considering Appellant’s response,

we dismiss the appeal for the reasons assigned below.

The instant case arises out of a breach of contract claim. In the course of these

proceedings, the Defendants filed a declinatory exception of improper venue.

Following a hearing, the trial court sustained the exception and transferred the case to

another venue. A written judgment was signed on August 20, 2012. Notice of

judgment was mailed on September 27, 2012. The Appellant timely filed a motion

and order for appeal on October 12, 2012. The record in this appeal was lodged on

December 19, 2012.

The trial court’s ruling sustaining the exception of improper venue and

transferring this case to another venue does not decide the merits of this case and is

interlocutory. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841. Therefore, we hereby dismiss the instant

appeal. The Appellant is hereby permitted to file a proper application for writs in

compliance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4, no later than March 1,

2013. The Appellant is not required to file a notice of intent to seek writs nor obtain

an order setting a return date pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule

4−3.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO FILE AN
APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.