Trish R. Veronie v. Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 24-465

TRISH R. VERONIE

VERSUS

JOSEPH VICTOR VAN BROCKLIN MIRELES

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C20183897
HONORABLE RONALD D. COX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHARON DARVILLE WILSON

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sharon Darville Wilson, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Guy E.
Bradberry, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSSED.

Shane Michael Mouton
DA’s Office-Non-Support Div.
1001 W Pinhook Bldg 3, #304
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 235-0751
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

Paula B. Bertuccini
225 West Main Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 456-2777
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:
Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles

Willliam A. Keaty, II
John W. Tilly
Keaty & Tilly
2701 Johnston St, Ste 307
Lafayette, LA 70503
(337) 347-8995
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE:
Trish R. Veronie

Michael A. Domingue, Jr.
Domingue Law Firm, LLC
109 Stewart Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 484-1001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:
Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles

Richard J. Wolff
3801 Canal Street #202
New Orleans, LA 70119
(504) 421-3277
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:
Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles

WILSON, Judge.

On March 8, 2024, the trial court below heard a motion to recuse the

honorable Thomas R. Duplantier which had been filed by Defendant-Appellant,

Joseph Victor Van Brocklin Mireles. The trial court denied said motion, signing

the Judgment on April 2, 2024. The Clerk of Court noticed the signing of said

Judgment on April 3, 2024. Appellant’s notice of intent to file appeal was filed on

June 3, 2024.

Upon the lodging of the record in this appeal, this court, on its own motion,

issued a rule for the Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be

dismissed as untimely and as having been taken from a non-appealable,

interlocutory judgment, citing La.Code Civ.P. arts. 3942 and 3943, as well as

Deville v. Calogero, 96-162 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/24/96), 673 So.2d 1175. Appellant

timely filed a response to this court’s rule.

In his response to the rule to show cause, Appellant conceeded that the

matter is “premature until the trial court either certifies the judgment below as a

final judgment, the district court reconsiders its ruling, or until the entirety of

appellant’s motion is heard such that it would be a final judgment. As such,

Appellant agree that this appeal should be dismissed without prejudice.”

Additionally, Appellant has not shown any good cause why his appeal was not

untimely. Accordingly, we find that the appeal was filed untimely and taken from a

non-appealable, interlocutory judgment. For the reasons assigned, the appeal is

hereby dismissed without prejudice.

APPEAL DISMISSSED.

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