Donald Colligan v. Maison De Lafayette Nursing Home

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-290

DONALD COLLIGAN, DEBRA
COLLIGAN LOPEZ, MAXINE
COLLIGAN NAVARRE, AND
DIANNE COLLIGAN COLOMB

VERSUS

MAISON DE LAFAYETTE NURSING
HOME AND KRISTIN TAUZIN, FNP

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20173369, DIV. B
HONORABLE JULES D. EDWARDS, III, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CANDYCE G. PERRET

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Candyce G. Perret,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

John Paul Charbonnet
The Glenn Armentor Law Corporation
300 Stewart Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
(337) 233-1471
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants:
Donald Colligan, Debra Colligan Lopez, Maxine Colligan Navarre, and
Dianne Colligan Colomb

Nicholas Gachassin, III
Holly McLay Descant
Gachassin Law Firm, LLC
200 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 103
Lafayette, Louisiana 70598-0369
(337) 235-4576
Counsel for Defendants/Appellants:
Maison de Lafayette
Kristin Tauzin, FNP

PERRET, Judge.

Plaintiffs-Appellants, Donald Colligan, Debra Colligan Lopez, Maxine

Colligan Navarre, and Dianne Colligan Colomb, were ordered to show cause, by

brief only, why their appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a

judgment lacking proper decretal language. See Brooks v. Sibille, 12-1093 (La.App.

3 Cir. 1/30/13), 107 So.3d 826. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the

devolutive appeal without prejudice.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After unsuccessfully presenting their case to a Medical Review Panel,

Plaintiffs filed suit against Maison de Lafayette Nursing Home and Kristen Tauzin,

FNP (Defendants), for damages arising out of the alleged substandard treatment of

Ed Colligan (Mr. Colligan) between June 6, 2013, and August 13, 2013. Plaintiffs

contend that the alleged substandard treatment caused Mr. Colligan’s death on

October 24, 2013.

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of

Plaintiffs’ claims based on the assertion that Plaintiffs had no medical expert

testimony to show that Defendants breached the applicable standard of care or

caused the alleged damages. The trial court granted the Motion for Summary

Judgment in open court, and a written judgment was signed on December 10, 2018.

On February 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for devolutive appeal. The

order of appeal was signed on February 11, 2019. In due course, the record was

lodged in this court. Ex proprio motu, this court issued a rule ordering Plaintiffs to

show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for the above-stated reason.

Plaintiffs did not respond to the rule.

DISCUSSION

Appellate courts have the duty to determine sua sponte whether
their subject matter jurisdiction exists, even when the parties do not
raise the issue. Motorola, Inc. v. Associated Indemnity Corporation,
02-1351 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/22/03), 867 So.2d 723, 725. Under
Louisiana law, a final judgment is one that determines the merits of a
controversy in whole or in part. La.Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1841. A
final judgment must be identified as such by appropriate language.
La.Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1918. A valid judgment must be precise,
definite, and certain. Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 02-
0045 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/02), 836 So.2d 364, 365. 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, 01-2016 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/27/02), 837 So.2d
43, 44. These determinations should be evident from the language of a
judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Laird,
836 So.2d at 366. The amended judgment, like the first judgment, does
not contain proper decretal language. Specifically, although the
judgment grants TPSS’s motion for summary judgment, it does not
specify what that relief entails. In the absence of such decretal
language, the judgment before us is defective and cannot be considered
as a “final judgment.” See Carter, 837 So.2d at 44. In the absence of
a final judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this matter.
Laird, 836 So.2d at 366.

Gaten v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Sys., 11-1133, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/23/12), 91

So.3d 1073, 1074.

In this instance, the trial court’s judgment indicates that the matter came for

hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and states that: “IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion for

Summary Judgment filed on behalf of defendants be and is hereby granted with

prejudice. All costs associated with these proceedings are assessed to plaintiffs.”

The judgment gives no indication as to the relief granted “from reference to the

judgment itself.” Brooks, 107 So.3d at 828. It is unknown from the judgment itself

whether all claims of the Plaintiffs are dismissed as to all Defendants or whether

only certain claims as to certain Defendants are dismissed. Therefore, this court

2

lacks jurisdiction to review this matter because the judgment is defective and cannot

be considered as a final appealable judgment. Id.

DECREE

For all the reasons given herein, this court does not have jurisdiction to

consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ appeal because it is taken from a judgment lacking

proper decretal language. We dismiss this appeal without prejudice. Plaintiffs are

free to seek a judgment containing the required decretal language.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

3