Frank Collatt v. Barbara T. Boudreaux

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-103

FRANK COLLATT AND
JENNIFER CORREIA

VERSUS

BARBARA T. BOUDREAUX AND
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20145830, DIV. F
HONORABLE DAVID M. SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
JOHN E. CONERY

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, John E. Conery, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

APPEAL SUSPENDED.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Brian M. Caubarreaux
Laura B. Knoll
Eugene A. Ledet, Jr.
Emily Gremillion
Brian Caubarreaux & Associates
144 Tunica Drive West
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
(318) 253-0900
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:
Jennifer Correia

J. P. D’Albor
Haik, Minivelle & Grubbs
1017 East Dale Street
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560
(337) 365-5486
Counsel for Intervenor:
Lafayette Surgical Hospital, LLC

Robert Mark Marionneaux, Jr.
The Marionneaux Law Firm
660 Saint Ferdinand Street
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
(225) 330-6679
Counsel for Plaintiff /Appellant:
Jennifer Correia

F. Douglas Wimberly
Cloyd, Wimberly & Villemarette, LLC
302 La Rue France, Suite 204
Lafayette, Louisiana 70508
(337) 289-6906
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Barbara T. Boudreaux
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

CONERY, Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant, Jennifer Correia (Correia), appeals a September 17, 2018

judgment on her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) as

amended by a judgment signed on April 3, 2019, following a remand from this court.

For the reasons that follow, we suspend the appeal for a second time and remand this

matter to the trial court with instructions to issue a judgment containing proper

decretal language naming the parties in whose favor and against whom the judgment

is rendered as directed by this court in Collatt v. Boudreaux, 19-103 (La.App.

3/13/19) (unpublished opinion).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This court previously set forth the facts of this case as follows:

Correia and Frank Collatt (Collatt) filed suit against Barbara T.
Boudreaux (Boudreaux) and her insurer, State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), following an automobile
accident that occurred on December 5, 2013. The vehicle being driven
by Correia and occupied by Collatt as a guest passenger was stopped in
the drive-through lane at the Chick-Fil-A on Ambassador Caffery
Parkway in Lafayette, Louisiana, when it was rear-ended twice by the
vehicle that Boudreaux was driving.

A review of the record reveals the following facts. Although the
same attorney represented Boudreaux and State Farm, separate answers
were filed on behalf of each. Correia and Collatt filed a motion for
summary judgment, which was not opposed by the defendants, and the
trial court entered judgment finding Boudreaux one hundred percent at
fault in causing the accident. Interventions were filed by Alfred
Boustany, II, APLC, the attorney who previously represented Correia
and Collatt, and by Lafayette Surgical Hospital, LLC.

Correia’s claims proceeded to trial by jury, and a verdict was
returned in her favor. She was awarded $120,960.04 for past medical
expenses; $120,000.00 for future medical expenses; $50,000.00 for past
mental and physical pain and suffering; $50,000.00 for future mental
and physical pain and suffering; $41,600.00 for past lost wages;
$20,800.00 for future lost wages; and $40,000.00 for permanent
disability. The jury did not award Correia any damages for permanent
scarring and disfigurement or for loss of enjoyment of life. A judgment
in accordance with the jury’s verdict was signed by the trial court.

Thereafter, Correia filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict which was set for contradictory hearing on August 6, 2018.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court awarded Correia
$15,000.00 for scarring and disfigurement, $25,000.00 for loss of
enjoyment of life, and otherwise left untouched the damages awarded
by the jury. Counsel for Boudreaux and State Farm was ordered to
prepare a judgment. On September 17, 2018, the trial court signed the
judgment presented to it. That judgment provided, in pertinent part, as
follows:

The Court, after considering the pleadings filed, argument of
counsel, and Louisiana Law, rendered Judgment as follows:

With regard to plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict, the award for permanent
scarring and disfigurement is increased from $0 to
$15,000.00; and the award for loss of enjoyment of life is
increased from $0 to $25,000.00. All other damages listed
on the Jury Verdict Form remain the same.

The defendants did not appeal either judgment. Correia filed a
motion for devolutive appeal of “the original Judgment rendered by the
jury and signed by the presiding judge on May 24, 2018, as well as the
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict signed on September 17, 2018.”
When the record was received by this court, we discovered that the
September 17, 2018 judgment did not state the relief granted or denied,
nor did it name the parties cast in judgment. Thereafter, we ordered
Correia to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as
having been taken from a judgment that lacked proper decretal
language. See Input/Output Marine Sys., 52 So.3d 909, and Mouton v.
AAA Cooper Transp., 17-666, 17-667 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/10/18), 237
So.3d 594.

Collatt, 19-103 (footnotes omitted).

This court declined to render a final judgment and then decide the merits of

the appeal because “the judgment was rendered after a trial on the merits and after

consideration of a motion for JNOV” and because “this court routinely declines to

exercise its supervisory jurisdiction where an adequate remedy by appeal would

exist after the issuance of a final judgment that has proper decretal language.”

Mouton, 237 So.3d at 597.

This court’s previous opinion specifically pointed out that “the September 8,

2018 judgment does not ‘name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, [or]

2

the party against whom the ruling is ordered.’ Input/Output Marine Systems, 52

So.3d at 916.” Collatt, 19-103 (footnote omitted). We stayed the appeal and

remanded this matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of rendering a final

judgment with proper decretal language.

On April 3, 2019, the trial court signed an amended judgment which stated

the nature of the relief granted and specified the increase in the award for permanent

scarring and disfigurement and in the award for loss of enjoyment along with the

other damages awarded by the jury such that the amount awarded is determinable

from the face of the judgment. The amended judgment, however, still failed to state

in whose favor and against whom the judgment was rendered.

Thus, this court issued another rule to Correia to show cause why the appeal

should not be dismissed as having been taken from the April 3, 2019 amended

judgment that still lacked proper decretal language. Correia responded to the rule

and attached a copy of a proposed judgment that had been approved as to form by

the defendants and submitted to the trial court. The proposed judgment included

language that “final judgment is hereby rendered herein in favor of plaintiff,

JENNIFER CORREIA, and against the defendants, Barbara T. Boudreaux and State

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, in solido.” This judgment was not

signed by the trial court.

Correia requests that this court issue a final judgment or again suspend the

appeal and remand the matter to the trial court. She argues that her appeal should

not be dismissed since it is through no fault of the parties that the amended judgment

still lacks decretal language. This court again declines to render a final judgment

and then decide the merits of the appeal based on Mouton, 237 So.3d 594.

3

DECREE

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal because it

was taken from a judgment that lacks proper decretal language. This appeal is

suspended, and the matter is again remanded to the trial court with instructions to

sign a judgment containing proper decretal language, specifically to name the party

in favor of whom the ruling is rendered and the party/parties against whom the ruling

is rendered, no later than May 16, 2019. The Clerk of Court for the Fifteenth Judicial

District Court shall forward the judgment so signed to this court as a supplement to

the appellate record.

APPEAL SUSPENDED. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

4