Alton Jiles, O/B/O Kayla Jiles v. Wilton Anthony

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CM 12-534

ALTON JILES ON BEHALF OF KAYLA JILES

VERSUS

WILTON ANTHONY, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 62507
HONORABLE STEPHEN BRUCE BEASLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

OSWALD A. DECUIR

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Billy H. Ezell, and J. David Painter, Judges.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.

Randall M. Seeser
Joseph P. Landreneau
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues
Post Office Box 6118
Alexandria, LA 71307-6118
(318) 445-6471
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
GuideOne Specialty Mutual Ins. Co.
Wilton Anthony
Siloam Baptist Church

Harold Dean Lucius, Jr.
Law Office of Kirby D. Kelly
515 Spring Street
Shreveport, LA 71101
(318) 459-1885
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Alton Jiles

DECUIR, Judge.

The Defendants-Appellees, Wilton Anthony, Siloam Baptist Church, and

Guideone Specialty Mutual Insurance Company, have filed a motion to dismiss the

Plaintiff’s appeal in this matter. For the reasons given herein, we deny the motion.

In their memorandum in support of motion to dismiss appeal, the

Defendants state that the trial court granted their motion for summary judgment on

October 21, 2011, and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The Plaintiff

filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial which was denied by the trial

court on November 21, 2011.

The Plaintiff filed his motion and order for notice of appeal on December

12, 2011. In the body of the motion, Plaintiff states that he desires to appeal

devolutively from the “final judgment rendered in this action”. However, the

attached order signed by the trial court states that the Plaintiff is granted an appeal

from the judgment signed on November 21, 2011. The judgment specifically

referenced by date is the trial court’s denial of the Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration and/or new trial. Because they contend that the trial court’s denial

of the Plaintiff’s motion is not an appealable judgment, the Defendants seek to

have this court dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal, with prejudice, and at Plaintiff’s cost.

Although we agree with Defendants that the denial of a motion for new trial

is not an appealable order, our inquiry does not end here. This court has held that

an appeal should be maintained where the argument by the appellant on appeal

indicates that the appeal is intended to be from the final judgment. McClure v.

City of Pineville, 05-1460 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/06), 944 So.2d 805, writ denied,

07-43 (La. 3/9/07), 949 So.2d 446. In this matter, we are unable to make this

determination at this time because the Plaintiff has not yet made his argument on

appeal. Therefore, we deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss at this time.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.

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

2