Dean J. Guidry, Sr. v. St. Martin Parish School Board

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 19-223

DEAN J. GUIDRY, SR.

VERSUS

ST. MARTIN PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 85946
HONORABLE SUZANNE M. deMAHY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN E. CONERY

JUDGE

**********

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

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; CASE REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

Allan Leland Durand
Attorney at Law
235 La Rue France
Lafayette, Louisiana 70508
(337) 237-8501
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
James B. Bulliard, Jr.

Dean Joseph Guidry
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 5255
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
(337) 266-2250
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Dean J. Guidry, Sr.

Jerry Lee Mallet
Jerry L. Mallet, LLC.
1030 Lafayette St.
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502
(337) 593-0910
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Sherbin Collette

Mark D. Boyer
Boyer, Hebert, Abels & Angelle
401 E. Mills Ave.
Breaux Bridge, Louisiana 70517
(337) 332-0616
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
St. Martin Parish School Board

CONERY, Judge.

This court, ex proprio motu, issued a rule for Plaintiff-Appellant, Dean Guidry,

Sr., to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this case should not be dismissed

as having been taken from a judgment lacking proper decretal language. No response

has been filed by Mr. Guidry. For the reasons assigned herein, we dismiss the appeal

without prejudice and remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with this

court’s ruling.

Mr. Guidry instituted this action with the filing of his Petition for Writ of

Mandamus, naming as defendants the St. Martin Parish School Board and its

superintendent, Dr. Lottie Beebe. In response to the action, the school board and its

superintendent filed various exceptions including an exception of unauthorized use of

summary proceeding. The trial court granted the exception of unauthorized use of

summary proceeding and recognized on its own nonjoinder of parties under La.Code

Civ.P. arts. 641 and 642. The trial court ordered Mr. Guidry to amend his petition to

convert the action to an ordinary suit and to join the additional parties needed for his

action.

Thereafter, Mr. Guidry filed his First Amending and Supplemental Petition for

Mandamus, Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment, naming the additional

defendants James B. Bulliard, Jr.; Gillray Patin; and Sherbin Collette. Mr. Guidry

averred that the school board had either expressly or de facto granted exclusive

hunting rights on Sixteenth Section Land to certain individuals without complying

with the Louisiana Public Bid Laws. He also asserted that some of the individuals

granted these exclusive hunting rights, or those acting at their direction, had attempted

to maintain their exclusive rights through intimidation and assault on others. By his

suit Mr. Guidry seeks to have any such leases declared null and void, in addition to

other relief.

Mr. Collette filed an answer to the amended petition and included a

reconventional demand against Mr. Guidry. Mr. Bulliard filed an exception of no

right of action and filed a pleading styled as a “Rule for Summary Judgment.” The

school board and its superintendent filed an answer and exceptions to the amended

petition. Mr. Guidry also filed an answer to Mr. Collette’s reconventional demand.

In Mr. Bulliard’s pleading seeking summary judgment, he writes that there is

no issue of genuine fact as to the lawfulness of his lease with the school board. Thus,

Mr. Bulliard concludes by asserting that he “is entitled to summary judgment as a

matter of law dismissing all claims by Plaintiff against him.” A hearing was held

before the trial court on March 29, 2018.

The trial court signed a written judgment on March 29, 2018, granting summary

judgment. The opening paragraph of the judgment states that the matter was before

the court on a “Motion for Summary Judgement and Exception for No Right of Action

filed on behalf of James Buillard [sic], Jr..” After noting that Mr. Bulliard had

withdrawn his “Exceptions”, the trial court entered the following disposition

(emphasis in original):

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted because Louisiana
Revised Statute 41:1212 states that whenever the school board in St.
Martin Parish leases any sixteenth section lands … for the agricultural
purpose…, it shall not be required to advertise for and receive bids … for
other leases. The Court finds that the St. Martin Parish School Board
extended hunting privileges/lease appropriately to James Buillard [sic], Jr.
for the Catahoula property under La. R.S. 41:1212.

Mr. Guidry filed a motion to appeal this judgment, and the trial court granted

the order of appeal. Upon the lodging of the record in this appeal, this court issued the

subject rule to show cause based on the ambiguity in the language of the judgment

appealed.

In State v. White, 05-718, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1144, 1146,

this court wrote:

2

In reviewing this case, we have discovered that the judgment is
sufficiently unclear so as to render this matter improperly before us on
review. In Jenkins v. Recovery Technology Investors, 02-1788, pp. 3-4
(La.App. 1 Cir. 6/27/03), 858 So.2d 598, 600, the first circuit observed
that:

While the judgment contains decretal language, it
does not order the payment of money, and it does not
identify the defendant who is cast in judgment. The failure
to name the defendant against whom the judgment is
rendered in a case with multiple defendants makes the
judgment fatally defective, because one cannot discern from
its face against whom it may be enforced. See Scott v. State
of Louisiana, 525 So.2d 689, 691 (La.App. 1st Cir.1988),
writ denied, 558 So.2d 1128 (La.1990).

A valid judgment must be precise, definite, and
certain. Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002-
0045, p. 3 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/20/02), 836 So.2d 364, 365;
Davis v. Farm Fresh Food Supplier, 2002-1401, p. 4
(La.App. 1st Cir.3/28/03), 844 So.2d 352, 353. 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. See Carter v. Williamson Eye
Center, 2001-2016 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/27/02), 837 So.2d 43.

In the instant appeal, the judgment appealed begins by indicating that the trial

court was considering a motion for summary judgment filed by one defendant, Mr.

Bulliard. However, the judgment does not dismiss any party from this suit. Instead,

the judgment does clearly declare that the lease to Mr. Bulliard is valid pursuant to

law. If the trial court’s ruling renders judgment as to only this issue, then the

judgment falls under the provisions of La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(E) and La.Code Civ.P.

art. 1915(B) and must be designated final and appealable before it is ripe for appeal.

See also La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A)(5). If, however, the judgment had dismissed Mr.

Bulliard from the suit, then the judgment would be immediately appealable pursuant

to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A)(1).

The trial court’s ruling states, “the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

is granted[.]” However, as quoted above, Mr. Bulliard had asked that all claims

against him be dismissed in his “Rule for Summary Judgment.” This court further

3

observes, though, that reference to extrinsic documents is not permitted for discerning

the intent of a judgment. See Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch,

Techs., Inc., 10-477, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 916 (stating, “The

specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment without reference to

an extrinsic source such as pleadings or reasons for judgment.”) Absent a definite

ruling, “the purported judgment does not constitute a final appealable judgment [and],

therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this matter.” White, 921 So.2d at

1147.

DECREE

As it is not determinable from the judgment whether any party is dismissed and

reference may not be made to extrinsic sources such as pleadings, this appeal is

dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of proper decretal language. In the

interest of judicial economy, the record may remain lodged in this court, the final

judgment on remand shall be added to supplement this record within thirty (30) days

of this ruling, and the matter will be docketed at that time.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; CASE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

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

4