The State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, SMG, and ASM Global, L.L.C. (hereinafter collectively “the State”), seeks review of the portion of the trial courts February 1, 2022 judgment awarding Margeaux Fairley (hereinafter “Ms. Fairley”) $750.00 in attorneys fees.
1
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The underlying facts of this matter can be found in this Courts previous opinion. Fairley v. Poche, 2020-0282, 2020-0308, pp. 1-2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/3/21), 313 So.3d 426, 427-28.
On June 29, 2021, Ms. Fairley filed a “Fourth Motion to Compel and for Attorneys Fees and Costs” requesting the court order the State to provide discovery responses and produce certain documents. The matter was heard by the trial court on December 10, 2021. By judgment dated February 1, 2022, the trial court granted in part and denied in part Ms. Fairleys motion to compel and ordered the State to pay Ms. Fairleys “attorneys fees in the amount of $750.00 plus costs[,] all costs incurred with the Fourth Motion to Compel.” On March 18, 2022, the State filed a motion for devolutive appeal seeking review of the portion of the February 1, 2022 judgment awarding attorneys fees.
On April 19, 2022, Ms. Fairley filed a motion to dismiss appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with this Court. Ms. Fairley argued that the February 1, 2022 judgment is a non-appealable interlocutory judgment. By order dated April 26, 2022 this Court deferred the motion to dismiss to the panel ultimately assigned to decide the merits of the appeal. On April 28, 2022, Ms. Fairley filed an answer to appeal asserting the same arguments in her motion to dismiss.
JURISDICTION
Judgments are either interlocutory or final. La. C.C.P. art. 1841. “A judgment that does not determine the merits in whole or in part is a final judgment.” Id. “A final judgment is appealable in all causes in which appeals are given by law, whether rendered after hearing, by default, or by reformation under [La. C.C.P. art.] 1814.” La. C.C.P. art. 2083(A). Conversely, “[a]n interlocutory judgment is appealable only when expressly provided by law.” La. C.C.P. art. 2083(C). “When a court renders a partial judgment․or sustains an exception in part․the judgment shall not constitute a final judgment unless it is designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.” La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)(1).
2
The February 1, 2022 judgment grants in part and denies in part Ms. Fairleys motion to compel. The portion of the judgment for which the State seeks review is the award of $750.00 in attorneys fees to Ms. Fairley as a result of the motion to compel. A judgment as to discovery matters is interlocutory because it determines only preliminary matters. See La. C.C.P. art. 1841; La. C.C.P. art. 2083(C); Channelside Servs., LLC v. Chrysochoos Grp., Inc., 2015-0064, p. 7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/13/16), 194 So.3d 751, 756. Additionally, jurisprudence has routinely held “that judgments as to discovery matters, including those awarding attorneys fees, are interlocutory rather than final.” Gorvine v. Travelers Ins. Companies, 1998-0287, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/18/98), 724 So.2d 248, 250 (citing Broda v. Jack Sutton., Inc., 488 So.2d 226, 227 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986); Fontenot v. Opelousas General Hospital, 525 So.2d 75 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1988); Winslow v. Goodyear Tire Co., 359 So.2d 699 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1978). As the February 1, 2022 judgment involved the award of attorneys fees as a result of a discovery matter, it is an interlocutory judgment.
3
Additionally, the trial court did not designate the judgment as a final appealable judgment. Accordingly, the proper procedural vehicle to seek review is through an application for supervisory writ, not an appeal. Delahoussaye v. Tulane Univ. Hosp. & Clinic, 2012-0906, 2012-0907, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/20/13), 155 So.3d 560, 562.
This Court has “exercised its discretion to convert the appeal of an interlocutory judgment into an application for supervisory writ.” Id. “However, we do so only when the motion for appeal has been filed within the thirty-day time period allowed for the filing of an application for supervisory writs under Rule 4-3 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.” Id., 2012-0906, p. 5, 155 So.3d at 563. In the case sub judice, the trial courts judgment was rendered (and the notice of signing of judgment mailed) on February 1, 2022. The motion for devolutive appeal was filed forty-five days later, on March 18, 2022. As the motion for devolutive appeal was filed beyond the thirty-day time period allowed for filing an application for supervisory writ, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the States motion for devolutive appeal as an application for supervisory writ. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED
FOOTNOTES
1
. The judgment also granted in part and denied in part Ms. Fairleys motion to compel. The State is not appealing the rulings on the motion to compel.
2
. La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A)(6) also permits the appeal of a judgment that imposes sanctions or disciplinary action pursuant to La. C.C.P. arts. 191, 863, or 864. None of these codal articles are applicable to the February 1, 2022 judgment.
3
. The State asserts that in Louis v. New Orleans City Park Improvement Assn, 2022-0047 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/4/22), 340 So.3d 143, this Court determined that an award for attorneys fees, as a result of a motion to compel, is a final appealable judgment. However, in Louis this Court did not explicitly make that determination. We noted that “[i]n the case sub judice, the district courts judgment is a final appealable judgment, as the award for attorneys fees is quantified with an amount of $500.00.” Id., p. 8, 340 So.3d at 148, n. 4 (citation omitted). The defendant initially filed a timely application for supervisory writs and subsequently voluntarily withdrew its writ application and timely filed a devolutive appeal. Id., 340 So.3d at 145-46. We also find Louis distinguishable as a review of the record reveals that the defendants motion for devolutive appeal sought review of the trial courts ruling on the motion to compel and the grant of attorneys fees. It was not until the defendants lodged their appeal that they presented the sole assignment of error for review as the district courts award of attorneys fees. In the case sub judice, the States motion for appeal only sought review of the district courts ruling granting attorneys fees.
Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase
JENKINS, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT