Gros v. STMG Lapeyre, LLC
| Decision Date | 06 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2014 CA 0848,2014 CA 0848 |
| Parties | ROBERT GROS v. STMG LAPEYRE, LLC, D/B/A ST. MARY GALVANIZING COMPANY, LLC |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the 32nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana
Honorable Timothy C. Ellender, Judge Presiding
Steven C. Thompson
Baton Rouge, LA
J. Keith Hardie, Jr.
Robert Gros
C. Shannon Hardy
John W. Penny, Jr.
STMG Lapeyre, LLC, d/b/a
St. Mary Galvanizing Co., L.L.C.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
This matter involves a trial court judgment sustaining a peremptory exception based on prescription and the subsequent dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for amendment of the pleadings.
On June 29, 2011, Robert Gros was driving a truck for his employer, Gulf Horizon Services, L.L.C. ("Gulf Horizon"), when a large piece of galvanized steel pipe dropped off an eighteen-wheeler truck owned and operated by STMG Lapeyre, L.L.C, d/b/a St. Mary Galvanizing Company, L.L.C. ("STMG"). The pipe fell onto the roadway surface of Highway 90 in Terrebonne Parish, where it unavoidably became lodged under the truck driven by Gros, and allegedly led to Gros sustaining neck and back injuries.
On November 14, 2011, Gros timely filed a disputed claim for workers' compensation benefits against Gulf Horizon and its insurer, Granite State Insurance Company, also referred to as "Chartis," claiming that he had been injured in the course and scope of his employment with Gulf Horizon. While his workers' compensation claim was pending, almost a year later, on October 17, 2012, Gros filed a tort suit against STMG, asserting that STMG's negligence caused his injuries. At some point in time that is not clearly revealed in the record, Gulf Horizon began to pay workers' compensation benefits to Gros, which ostensibly resolved the workers' compensation dispute. Gros then filed a motion to dismiss his workers' compensation claim, apparently in consideration of the payment of workers' compensation benefits. Accordingly, by order dated November 28, 2012, the workers' compensation judge signed a judgment dismissing Gros's claims against Gulf Horizon and Chartis, without prejudice.
Thereafter, on July 17, 2013, STMG filed an answer and a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription, contending that since Gros's tort suit was filed more than a year after the accident, his petition was prescribed on its face. STMG further maintained that pursuant to La. Civ. Code art. 3463, Gros's voluntary dismissal of his workers' compensation claim meant that prescription was never interrupted as to the tort suit. Gros opposed STMG's exception, asserting that his timely filed workers' compensation claim interrupted prescription as to his tort suit against STMG, who is a solidarily liable defendant, and maintaining that the dismissal, without prejudice, of the workers' compensation claim was due to a settlement of his claim for workers' compensation benefits, not a voluntary dismissal.
The trial court held a hearing on the prescription issue on November 25, 2013; no testimony or other evidence was introduced, but several exhibits were attached to the memoranda filed into the record in support of each parties' position. After argument was presented by both parties, the trial court ruled in favor of STMG, sustaining the exception of prescription in a judgment signed on December 12, 2013; however, the judgment did not order any relief.1 Gros filed a devolutive appeal. This Court, ex proprio motu, issued a rule to show cause order that instructed the parties to show cause by briefs why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of appropriate decretal language in the judgment that disposed of or dismissed Gros's tort suit. The show cause order also instructed the parties that if the trial court signed an amended judgment addressing the defective decretal language, the appellate record should be supplemented with the amended judgment.
On July 31, 2014, Gros filed a responsive brief to this Court's show cause order, agreeing that the trial court's judgment was fatally flawed for lack of decretallanguage. Gros argued that the appeal should be dismissed without prejudice and remanded to the trial court for amendment of the judgment, but he did not file a motion to dismiss his appeal. Gros maintained that the trial court now lacked subject matter jurisdiction to substantively amend the judgment absent a remand by this Court, because the trial court's jurisdiction had been divested when Gros filed his appeal. Meanwhile, on August 13, 2014, STMG filed a motion and order to amend the judgment and requested an expedited hearing in the trial court. The record reveals that Gros filed an opposition to the motion on the next day, arguing that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction and that this Court should first remand the matter to the trial court for a contradictory hearing before the issuance of an amended judgment.
Notably, the trial court did not hold a hearing on STMG's motion to amend, but instead, signed an amended judgment on August 13, 2014. The amended judgment added language to the original judgment after sustaining STMG's exception of prescription, and stated that it was a final judgment in favor of STMG, and dismissed all of Gros's claims against STMG. The trial court also ordered that the appellate record be supplemented with the amended judgment.2 Thereafter, on August 20, 2014, STMG filed a responsive brief to this Court's show cause order, arguing that the amended judgment cured any apparent decretal language defects inthe prior judgment such that the appeal was now properly before this Court. Gros filed a reply brief, maintaining his opposition to the manner in which the trial court amended the original judgment, and requesting that this Court remand the matter to the trial court for a contradictory hearing before the trial court renders a valid judgment. Out of an abundance of caution, Gros also filed a separate appeal from the amended judgment, raising the same procedural errors and argument on the merits as in this appeal.3 A final determination on the rule to show cause was referred to this appellate panel for disposition, along with the merits of the appeal. Therefore, we must first address the rule to show cause before considering the merits on the prescription issue.
A final, appealable judgment must contain decretal language, and it must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied. See Jenkins v. Recovery Technology Investors, 2002-1788 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/27/03), 858 So.2d 598, 600; Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 2001-2016 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/27/02), 837 So.2d 43, 44. Input/Output Marine Systems, Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Technologies, Inc., 2010-477 (La. App. 5th Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 915-16 (citations omitted). The specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings or reasons for judgment. Id., 52 So.3d at 916.
Because the December 12, 2013 judgment lacked the appropriate decretal language disposing of and/or dismissing Gros's tort claim against STMG, which was necessary for a valid final judgment, this Court ordered the parties to show cause whether the appeal should be maintained. In limited circumstances, when necessary to reach a just decision and to prevent a miscarriage of justice, an appellate court may remand a case to the trial court under the authority of La. Code Civ. P. art. 2164. See Gorman v. Miller, 2012-0412 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/13/13), 136 So.3d 834, 841, writ denied, 2013-2909 (La. 3/21/14), 135 So.3d 620. So, while it is true that the jurisdiction of the trial court is divested, and that of the appellate court attaches when the trial court grants the order for a devolutive appeal, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction only as to the parties and issues that are the subject of the judgment that has been appealed. La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088(A); James v. Formosa Plastics Corp. of Louisiana, 2001-2056 (La. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 335, 340.
An appellate court has an independent duty to consider whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, even when the issue is not raised by the litigants. Gaten v. Tangipahoa Parish School System, 2011-1133 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/23/12), 91 So.3d 1073, 1074; McGehee v. City/Parish of East Baton Rouge, 2000-1058 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/12/01), 809 So.2d 258, 260. Once the jurisdiction of the trial court is divested, "the appellate court alone may determine whether an appeal is properly before it." Downey v. Bellue, 178 So.2d 778, 781 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1965). This right in the appellate court "rests solely within the power and jurisdiction of the appellate court by virtue of its supervisory jurisdiction over the lower tribunal." Id. See also Sledge v. McGlathery, 324 So.2d 354, 357 (La. 1975) ( ). Additionally, La. Code Civ. P. art. 191provides that "[a] court possesses inherently all of the power necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction even though not granted expressly by law."
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial