A Plus Home Care Services, LLC v. a Blessing Personal Home Care Services, LLC

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 24-444

A PLUS HOME CARE SERVICES, LLC

VERSUS

A BLESSING PERSONAL HOME

CARE SERVICES, LLC

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2018-1801
HONORABLE MICHELLE M. BREAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, D. Kent Savoie, and Jonathan W. Perry,
Judges.

MOTION TO SUSPEND BRIEFING DENIED.

Christopher C. Johnston
Johnston Law Firm, LLC
7830 Sage Hill Road
St Francisville, LA 70775
(225) 763-1244
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE:
A Blessing Personal Home CareServices, LLC

Amanda Ann Martin
Assistant Atty. General
P. O. Box 94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(225) 326-6200
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT:
A Plus Home Care Services, LLC

Kevin Jerome Gillie
205 Blount Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70807
(469) 222-6437
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE:
A Caring Home Care Services, LLC

Lucretia P. Pecantte
124 W. Washington Street, Suite B
New Iberia, LA 70560
(337) 374-1202
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT:
A Plus Home Care Services, LLC

Travis J. Broussard
PO Box 82238
Lafayette, LA 70598
(337) 534-4242
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE:
A Blessing Personal Home CareServices, LLC

Sarah E. Aycock
628 N Fourth Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225) 342-5631
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE:
Louisiana Department of Health

SAVOIE, Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant in this matter, A Plus Home Care Services, LLC

(hereinafter “A Plus”), filed a motion seeking the suspension of briefing deadlines

in its appeal of a judgment in favor of Defendant and Plaintiff in Reconvention, A

Blessing Personal Home Care Services (“A Blessing”). For the reasons below, we

deny the motion.

On May 29, 2024, judgment was entered in favor of A Blessing in a contract

dispute between it and A Plus. A Plus appealed. By order of this court dated

August 21, 2024, the appeal was suspended and the matter remanded to the trial

court to amend the original judgment due to a lack of proper decretal language in

that judgment. This court found that the original judgment did not specify the

relief awarded. An amended judgment was rendered September 5, 2024,

specifically setting forth monetary damages awarded to A Blessing. Upon

receiving the amended judgment, A Plus filed a Motion and Order to Strike and/or

Reconsideration of the Amended Judgment with the trial court, alleging that the

corrected judgment substantially altered the original judgment of the trial court. A

hearing on that motion has been set for November 12, 2024, in the trial court below.

A Plus then filed the current motion with this court, seeking to suspend the briefing

deadlines in its appeal until the scheduled hearing occurs.

A trial court’s jurisdiction over matters on appeal is governed by Louisiana

Code of Civil Procedure article 2088, which sets forth the following general rule

that “[t]he jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the case reviewable

under the appeal is divested, and that of the appellate court attaches, . . . on the

granting of the order of appeal, in the case of a devolutive appeal.” La. C.C.P. art.

2088(A). As noted by the Fourth Circuit in Ohle v. Uhalt, 23-501, pp.6-9 (La.App.

4 Cir. 1/10/24), 381 So.3d 136, 140-42(footnotes omitted)(first alteration ours):

Act 259 of the 2021 Regular Legislative Session amended La.
C.C.P. art. 2088(A) to provide that the trial court has continuing
jurisdiction after an order of appeal is signed to issue an amended
judgment with proper decretal language (the “2021 Legislation”). The
purpose of the 2021 Legislation was to reverse “the [then] recent
practice of the Court of Appeal to dismiss appeals when final
judgments do not contain proper decretal language.” Roger A. Stetter,
Final Judgments—Decretal Language, La. Prac. Civ. App. § 3:15
(2023). . . .

....

Addressing the decretal-language problem, the Legislature, in
the 2021 Legislation, created a new procedural mechanism. Under the
new mechanism, the appellate court—when faced with an otherwise
final judgment with a decretal-language deficiency—is mandated not
to dismiss the appeal. Rather, an appellate court is mandated to take
three steps: (i) to retain jurisdiction; (ii) to order the trial court to
supplement the record with an amended judgment; and (iii) to render a
decision on the merits once the record is supplemented. See U.S. Bank
Nat’l Ass’n as Tr. for RFMSI 2005S7 v. Dumas, 21-0585, pp. 4-5 (La.
App. 1 Cir. 12/22/21), 340 So.3d 246, 249 (observing that “the
appellate court, while retaining appellate jurisdiction over a final
judgment that lacks proper decretal language, shall remand the matter
to the district court for correction of deficiencies in decretal
language”).

The Legislature created this new mechanism by amending a trio
of articles—La. C.C.P. arts. 1918, 1951, and 2088; the Legislature
made the following changes to the three articles:

• La. C.C.P. art. 1918(A): Amended to provide that “[i]f
appealed, a final judgment that does not contain the appropriate
decretal language shall be remanded to the trial court, which shall
amend the judgment in accordance with Article 1951 within the time
set by the appellate court”;

• La. C.C.P. art. 1951: Amended to provide that “[o]n motion of
the court or any party, a final judgment may be amended at any
time . . . to correct deficiencies in the decretal language” but providing
that “[t]his Article does not allow the court to make a substantive
change to a final judgment”; and

• La. C.C.P. art. 2088(A): Amended to provide that after the
granting of an order of appeal, “the trial court has jurisdiction in the
case only over those matters not reviewable under the appeal,
including the right to do any of the following: . . . (12) Amend a
judgment to provide proper decretal language under Article 1918 or
1951.”

2

It is clear that under the revised Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles

and Ohle, 381 So.3d 136, this court has retained jurisdiction over this matter, even

though we have remanded it back to the trial court for sole purpose of the

correction of the deficient decretal language in the initial judgment. The trial court

below had jurisdiction only so far as to cure that deficient judgment, as ordered by

this court, which it has done. The trial court does not have proper jurisdiction to

hold a hearing on A Plus’s motion to strike or reconsider the amended judgment.

Jurisdiction remains in this court, where we will proceed with the appeal of the

amended, corrected judgment. Accordingly, there is no valid reason to suspend the

established briefing schedule. A Plus’s Motion to Suspend Briefing is hereby

denied, at their costs.

MOTION TO SUSPEND BRIEFING DENIED.

3