Leonard Bob, Jr. v. Kasey Addison

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 15-844

LEONARD BOB, JR.

VERSUS

KASEY ADDISON, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20150321
HONORABLE EDWARD B. BROUSSARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Judges Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy H. Ezell, and John E. Conery.

APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.

Terri M. Collins
Carl William Robicheaux
Robicheaux & Collins
2014 W. Pinhook Rd., Ste 503
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 235-7888
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Zurich American Insurance Company
Nine Energy Services, Inc.

Pride Justin Doran
Quincy L. Cawthorne
Christopher B. Lear
Doran & Cawthorne, PLLC
Post Office Box 2119
Opelousas, LA 70571
(337) 948-8008
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Leonard Bob, Jr.

Kasey Addison
In Proper Person
1433 Thomasee Road
Arnaudville, LA 70512
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Kasey Addison

COOKS, Judge.

After the lodging of the record in this appeal, on September 9, 2015, this

court issued a rule for the plaintiff/appellant, Leonard Bob, Jr., to show cause, by

brief only, why his appeal should not be dismissed as premature, citing this court’s

ruling in Egle v. Egle, 05-531 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/8/06), 923 So.2d 780. Appellant

has filed a brief in response to this court’s rule, and the defendants/appellees,

Zurich American Insurance Company and Nine Energy Services, Inc., has filed a

response to the appellant’s brief. For the reasons given below, we dismiss this

appeal without prejudice.

The trial court entered judgment dismissing the appellant’s suit on an

exception of prescription. Appellant then timely filed a motion for new trial.

Submitted with the motion for new trial was a proposed order to set the new trial

for hearing. The trial court drew slash marks across the order language and wrote

the word “Denied” across the proposed order. Appellant filed a Notice for Appeal,

and the trial court signed the order of appeal.

As stated above, this court issued a rule for the appellant to show cause why

the appeal should not be dismissed as premature, citing Egle, 923 So.2d 780. In

the appellant’s brief submitted in response to this court’s rule, the appellant argues

that the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial without conducting a

contradictory hearing. We do not reach this issue. Instead, we find that the facts

of this case are substantially identical to those presented in Egle. In that case, this

court ruled that the writing of the word “denied” across a proposed order to set the

subject motion for hearing is not a denial of the motion itself. Thus, this court held

that the appeal in Egle was filed prematurely in violation of La.Code Civ.P. arts.

2087(D) and 2123(C) because not all post-judgment motions had been properly

decided in a hearing or through an appropriate judgment. For these same reasons,

we find that the appeal in the instant case is likewise premature and must be

dismissed, without prejudice. We remand this case to the trial court for proper

disposition of the motion for new trial filed by Leonard Bob, Jr.

APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.

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

2