Motion to dismiss granted. Appeal transferred to the court of appeal. See per curiam.
Appellant, the State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions, invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(D), on the ground that the district court declared La. R.S. 51:720 to be unconstitutional. After the record was lodged, plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. Appellant filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Pretermitting the merits, we find the appeal is not properly before this court. Article V, § 5(D) vests appellate jurisdiction in this court in cases in which “a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional․” A review of the district courts judgment indicates the court merely denied appellants motion for partial summary judgment. Nothing in the judgment declares a law or ordinance unconstitutional.
Although the district courts reasons for judgment discuss the constitutionality of La. R.S. 51:720, it is well-settled law that a trial courts oral or written reasons form no part of the judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1918; Barber v. Louisiana Workforce Commn, 17-0750 (La. 6/5/17), 221 So.3d 38; Perez v. Evenstar, Inc., 12-1003 (La. 6/22/12), 91 So.3d 288; Fla. Gas Transmission Co. v. Louisiana Tax Commn, 09-0729 (La. 5/15/09), 10 So.3d 1219; Meaux v. Galtier, 07-2474 (La. 1/25/08), 972 So.2d 1137; Burmaster v. Plaquemines Par. Govt, 07-1311 (La. 8/31/07), 963 So.2d 378; Carmena v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office, 06-0260 (La. 2/2/07), 947 So.2d 715.
1
Because there is no declaration of unconstitutionality in the district courts judgment, there is no basis for the exercise of this courts appellate jurisdiction. Although we have plenary supervisory jurisdiction, we decline to exercise that authority to review the proceedings in their current posture. Instead, in the interest of justice, we will transfer the matter to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, with instructions to convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed based on lack of appellate jurisdiction. The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Appellant urges us to consider St. Charles Gaming Co., Inc. v. River Boat Gaming Commission, 94-2697 (La. 11/10/94), 645 So.2d 208, in which we noted “probable appellate jurisdiction” over a judgment granting a preliminary injunction, where the declaration of unconstitutionality was in the courts written reasons but not in the judgment. In doing so, we observed the “declaration appears to be the basis for the trial courts preliminary injunction judgment and therefore cannot be considered as dictum lacking the force of an adjudication.” Id. at 209. This holding arose under unique facts and is distinguishable. Unlike St. Charles Gaming, where the court granted relief to the plaintiff by enjoining the parish from enforcing its zoning ordinances, the judgment in the instant case merely denied appellants motion for summary judgment. Therefore, any reference to constitutionality of the statute in the courts reasons for judgment lacked the force of adjudication.