Tifiny Grantham v. Louisiana Workforce Commission

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 22-773

TIFINY GRANTHAM

VERSUS

LOUISIANA WORKFORCE COMMISSION

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 272,828
HONORABLE PATRICIA EVANS KOCH, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Gary J. Ortego,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

J. Jerome Burden
Deptartment of Labor
Post Office Box 94094
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9094
(225) 342-3044
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Louisiana Workforce Commission

Tifiny Ann Grantham
In Proper Person
51 Cook Road
Forest Hill, LA 71430
(318) 587-2138
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Tifiny Grantham

SAVOIE, Judge.

On December 1, 2022, this court ordered pro se Plaintiff-Appellant, Tifiny Ann

Grantham, to show cause, by brief only, why the instant appeal should not be

dismissed as untimely. Appellant responded by brief to the rule. For the reasons set

forth herein, we dismiss the appeal.

On February 8, 2022, Appellant filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the lower

court, seeking review of the decision of the Workforce Commission, State of

Louisiana (Board of Review), which disqualified Appellant from receiving Pandemic

Unemployment Assistance. On July 18, 2022, the trial court affirmed the Board of

Review’s decision. Notice of judgment was mailed to the parties on July 21, 2022.

Appellant filed the instant devolutive appeal on October 11, 2022, prompting this

court to issue a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as

untimely. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2087.

In Appellant’s response, she explains the difficulties she experienced in finding

an attorney to represent her on appeal. When she could not secure an attorney to file

her appeal, she began searching online to see what she needed to do. Appellant

thought she had found and submitted the correct forms on September 26, 2022.

However, on or about October 6, 2022, Appellant received a letter from the Rapides

Parish Clerk of Court’s office, advising that the file had been returned because there

was no order for the judge to sign. That same day, Appellant contacted Attorney

Wendy Maynard who arranged with her paralegal to get an order to Appellant. On

October 11, 2022, Appellant had a friend bring the correct form to be signed by the

judge.

Pursuant to Article 2087, “an appeal which does not suspend the effect or the

execution of an appealable order or judgment may be taken within sixty days of . . .

the expiration of the delay for applying for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the

verdict. Appellant confirms that the notice of appeal was not filed until October 11,

2022, more than sixty days from the expiration of the delay for filing a motion for

new trial. Accordingly, we find that the appeal was filed untimely and is hereby

dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

2