Debra Bergeron Duhon v. Petro E", LLC "

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

17-587

DEBRA BERGERON DUHON

VERSUS

PETRO “E” LLC, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 88120
HONORABLE MARILYN C. CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Phyllis M. Keaty, Van H. Kyzar, and Candyce G. Perret,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

William W. Goodell, Jr.
Goodell Law Firm
Post Office Box 52663
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-2663
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Debra Bergeron Duhon

Stephen B. Murray
Murray Law Firm
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Debra Bergeron Duhon

Michael G. Stag
Smith Stag, LLC
365 Canal Street, Suite 2850
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Debra Bergeron Duhon

Barry J. Sallinger
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 2433
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-2433
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Debra Bergeron Duhon

Elizabeth A. Roche
Burns Charest, LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Debra Bergeron Duhon

Stephen M. Larzelere
Larzelere Picou Wells Simpson Lonero, LLC
Two Lakeway Center, Suite 1100
3850 N. Causeway Boulevard.
Metairie, Louisiana 70002
Counsel for Defendant And Cross-Claimant:
EnerQuest Oil & Gas, LLC

F. Barry Marionneaux
F. Barry Marrionneaux, APLC
23615 Railroad Avenue
Plaquemine, Louisiana 70764
Counsel for Defendant:
Dow Chemical Company

Robert E. Kerrigan, Jr.
Deutsch Kerrigan, LLP
755 Magazine Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3672
Counsel for Defendant:
Estis Well Service, Inc.

David M. Bienvenu, Jr.
Bienvenu, Bonnecase, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC
4210 Bluebonnet Boulevard
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809
Counsel for Defendant:
Dow Chemical Company

Charles R. Minyard
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 3642
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-3642
Counsel for Defendant:
Apache Corporation

KEATY, Judge.

This court issued a rule ordering Appellant, EnerQuest Oil & Gas, LLC

(EnerQuest), to show cause, by brief only, why its appeal should not be dismissed

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

v. White, 05-718 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1144. For the reasons that

follow, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand the matter to the trial

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Debra Bergeron Duhon (Duhon) filed a petition for damages naming

EnerQuest as a defendant. EnerQuest asserted a cross-claim against Estis Well

Service, LLC (Estis). In response, Estis filed a motion for summary judgment

seeking to have EnerQuest’s claims against it dismissed. Following a hearing on

the matter, the trial court granted Estis’ motion for summary judgment and

designated the judgment as final. However, the judgment did not dismiss

EnerQuest’s claims against Estis.

A devolutive appeal relative to the judgment on Estis’ motion for summary

judgment was filed on behalf of EnerQuest. When the record was lodged in this

court, a rule was issued ordering EnerQuest to show cause why its appeal should

not be dismissed for the above-stated reason.

DISCUSSION

The rule to show cause order indicated that Appellant was to show cause, if

there was any, why the appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a

judgment lacking decretal language. Appellant concedes that the judgment “does

not contain the following specific decretal language, ‘and all claims asserted by

EnerQuest Oil & Gas, LLC against Estis Well Service, Inc. are dismissed, with

prejudice, and at EnerQuest’s costs’” but “merely contains language confirming

that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Estis (in which it requested a

dismissal of all claims asserted against it by EnerQuest) was granted.”

The jurisprudence is clear that “[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.” Thomas v. Lafayette Parish Sch. Sys., 13-91, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir.

3/6/13), 128 So.3d 1055, 1056 (quoting White, 921 So.2d at 1146).

In Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural &

Mechanical College v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 14-506, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 4 Cir.

10/15/14), 151 So.3d 908, 910, the court stated:

We cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our
jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment. See
Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Tech., Inc., 10-
477, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10); 52 So.3d 909, 915. “A judgment
is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action and may
award any relief to which the parties are entitled.” La. C.C.P. art.
1841. “A valid judgment must be precise, definite and certain. . . .
The decree alone indicates the decision. . . . The result decreed must
be spelled out in lucid, unmistakable language. . . . . The quality of
definiteness is essential to a proper judgment. Input/Output Marine,
10-477, pp. 12-13; 52 So.3d at 915-16 (citations omitted).

. . . “The specific relief granted should be determinable from the
judgment without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings or
reasons for judgment.” Input/Output Marine, 10-477, p. 13; 52 So.3d
at 916.

While the judgment in this case clearly grants the motion for summary

judgment filed by Estis, it does not state whether any or all of the claims of

EnerQuest asserted against Estis are dismissed. Therefore, this judgment “does not

contain all of the necessary decretal language to meet the requirements of a final

judgment.” Dietz v. Dietz, 13-186, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 128 So.3d 1215,

1220. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. When a final judgment is

rendered with the proper decretal language, Appellant may file a new appeal with

2

this court. See Smith v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 15-962 (La.App. 4 Cir.

2/17/16), 186 So.3d 1180.

DECREE

For all the reasons given, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits

of EnerQuest’s appeal because it was taken from a judgment that lacks proper

decretal language. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed without prejudice, and the

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

opinion.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

3