Danny Castille, Et Ux. v. Jonathan Blum

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-65

DANNY CASTILLE, ET AL.

VERSUS

JONATHAN BLUM, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ACADIA, NO. 12-10736, DIV. A
HONORABLE JOHN D. TRAHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
SHANNON J. GREMILLION

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Marc T. Amy, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED AND REMANDED.

Stephen R. Barry
Barry & Co., LLC
405 West Main Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 237-2889
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Danny Castille, et al.

Skylar J. Comeaux
Carl B. Robicheaux
Terri M. Collins
Robicheaux & Collins
214 West Pinhook Road, Suite 5
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 235-7888

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
Zurich American Insurance Company
Neal J. Favret
Alan J. Yacoubian
Johnson, Johnson, Barrios & Yacoubian
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London

Richard F. King
Jennifer L. Simmons
Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4040
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 525-6802
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR:
Zurich American Insurance Company

Sean P. Rabalais
Law Office of Casler Bordelon & Lawler
11550 Newcastle Avenue, Suite 200
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
Progressive Security Insurance Company, Jonathan Blum,
And Jonathan Blum Plumbing & Excavation

Russell Zaunbrecher
Edwards, Stefanski & Zaunbrecher
125 E. Hutchinson Avenue
Crowley, LA 70526
(337) 783-7000
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Danny Castille, et al.

GREMILLION, Judge.

This court issued a rule ordering Plaintiffs/Appellants, Danny Castille and

Dawn Castille, to show cause, by brief only, why their appeal should not be

dismissed for having been taken from a judgment lacking proper decretal language.

See Thomas v. Lafayette Parish Sch. System, 13-91 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/13), 128

So.3d 1055. Plaintiffs’ attorney timely filed a brief alleging that the judgment at

issue meets the requirements of Thomas. In the alternative, Plaintiffs’ attorney

requests that this court either convert the appeal to an application for supervisory

writs or remand the matter to the trial court to issue a judgment containing proper

decretal language. For the reasons assigned, we dismiss the instant appeal and

remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this

court’s ruling. See Poncho v. Fontenot, 14-902 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/24/14), ___

So.3d ___, and Fortenberry v. Continental Cas. Co., 14-953 (La.App. 3 Cir.

10/15/14), ___ So.3d ___.

This case arises out of an automobile accident which occurred on September

24, 2011. Defendant/Appellee, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London (Certain

Underwriters), is the underinsured motorist insurance carrier for Plaintiffs. Certain

Underwriters filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that its “bobtail

insurance policy does not provide coverage” for the Plaintiffs’ claims since “[t]he

alleged damages suffered by the plaintiffs were the result of losses from the

plaintiff’s operation of a vehicle that was attached to a trailer.” Following a

hearing on June 9, 2014, the trial court granted Certain Underwriters’ motion.

On June 19, 2014, the trial court signed a judgment which stated, in

pertinent part:

After considering the pleadings, evidence and argument of
counsel, it is hereby ordered that the Motion for Summary Judgment

filed by Defendant, Certain Underwriters, is hereby GRANTED.
Each party will bear its own costs with respect to this Motion.

In Thomas, 128 So.3d at 1056, this court stated:

“[a] valid judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. 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.” State v. White, 05-718 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d
1144, 1146. Moreover, a judgment cannot require reference to
extrinsic documents or pleadings in order to discern the court’s ruling.
Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 2001-809 (La.App. 1 Cir.
5/10/02), 818 So.2d 906.

Clearly, the judgment at issue herein does not meet these requirements as it does

not state the relief granted. Plaintiffs’ attorney alleges that “[t]he judgment

dismisses all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant.” We do not agree.

The judgment merely states that the motion for summary is judgment is granted.

Reference to other pleadings would be required to ascertain what relief was

requested in the motion for summary judgment.

The judgment dated June 19, 2014, is ambiguous and lacks proper decretal

language. Therefore, we dismiss the instant appeal and remand the matter to the

trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

APPEAL DISMISSED AND REMANDED.

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

2