Pratimakone (Tommy) Aphaiyarath v. Lafayette Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-691

PRATIMAKONE (TOMMY) APHAIYARATH

VERSUS

LAFAYETTE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2024-1857
HONORABLE CYNTHIA SPADONI, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CANDYCE J. PERRET

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Gary J. Ortego, and Ledricka J. Thierry,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT
PERMITTED TO FILE AN
APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY
WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THIS
DECISION.

Daniel M Landry, III
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 3784
Lafayette, La 70502
(337) 237-7135
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:
Pratimakone (Tommy) Aphaiyarath

M.Candice Hattan
Attorney at Law
P. O. Drawer 91850
Lafayette, LA 70509
(337) 234-0431
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:
Lafayette Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board

Michael P. Corry, Sr.
Briney, Foret & Corry
413 Travis Street, Ste 200
Lafayette, LA 70503-2459
(337) 237-4070
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:
Lafayette City Parish Consolidated Government/Lafayette Police Dept,
A/K/A City of Lafayette

PERRET, Judge.

On December 27, 2024, this court issued a rule ordering Plaintiff-Appellant,

Pratimakone (Tommy) Aphaiyarath, to show cause, by brief only, why the instant

appeal should not be dismissed for having been taken from a non-appealable,

interlocutory ruling. For the reasons discussed herein, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Appellant was a police officer with the Lafayette City Police Department.

He was terminated on August 3, 2023. Pursuant to Civil Service Law, Appellant

appealed his termination to the Lafayette Fire and Police Civil Service Board. On

March 13, 2024, the Civil Service Board upheld the termination of Appellant after

a contradictory hearing. From that ruling, Appellant appealed to the 15th Judicial

District Court, who ruled in favor of the Civil Service Board, maintaining his

termination. Judgment was signed on August 6, 2024. Notice of signing of the

judgment was mailed on August 7, 2024. On August 15, 2024, within 30 days of

that signing of judgment, Appellant filed a Petition for Appeal.

Upon the lodging of the appeal, this court issued a rule to show cause why

the appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable,

interlocutory judgment. In response to the rule to show cause, Appellant filed an

Appellate Brief Supplement wherein he conceded that this court lacks appellate

jurisdiction.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:2501(E)(1) states:

Any employee under classified service and any appointing
authority may appeal from any decision of the board, or from any
action taken by the board under the provisions of the Part that is
prejudicial to the employee or appointing authority. This appeal shall
lie direct to the court of original and unlimited jurisdiction in civil
suits of the parish wherein the board is domiciled.

In In re Scott, 15-199 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/15), 175 So.3d 1058, this court,

citing Miazza v. City of Mandeville, 10-304 (La. 5/21/10), 34 So.3d 849, held that a

court of appeal lacks jurisdiction when appellate jurisdiction has been vested in the

district court. See also Lafayette Consol. Gov’t v. Robert, 22-179 (La.App. 3 Cir.

11/2/22)(2022 WL 16631348)(unpublished opinion). The court in In re Scott

converted the matter to an application for supervisory writ, which Mr. Aphaiyarath

has requested we do, as he agrees that this court does not have appellate

jurisdiction.

We note that Appellant filed his motion to appeal within the thirty-day

period allowed for the filing of an application for supervisory writs. Uniform

Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4–3. In the interest of justice, this court may

permit a party to file a writ application when a motion for appeal is filed within

thirty days of the trial court’s ruling. Rain CII Carbon, LLC v. Turner Indus. Grp.,

LLC, 14-121 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/19/14), 161 So.3d 688. Accordingly, we exercise

our discretion and construe the motion for appeal as a notice of intent to file for

supervisory writs. The appeal in docket number 24-691 is hereby dismissed, and

Appellant is given thirty days from the date of this decision to file a properly

documented application for supervisory writs pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts

of Appeal, Rule 4–5.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT PERMITTED TO FILE AN
APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

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

2