Jordan Lipner-Riza v. Timothy Aaron Causey

2025-12-01

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed outside the thirty-day deadline prescribed by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 3943 for appealing custody judgments.

Jordan Lipner-Riza obtained a judgment in November 2023 permitting her to relocate with the couple's minor child and granting her primary physical custody. Timothy Aaron Causey, the child's father, filed a motion for new trial in December 2023, which the trial court denied as untimely. Causey then pursued a supervisory writ to challenge the denial of his motion for new trial; that writ was granted in March 2024, but the court found no abuse of discretion and denied relief on the merits. In April 2024, Causey filed an appeal of the original relocation judgment.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits because Causey missed the deadline to appeal. Louisiana procedural rules impose expedited appeal periods in family law custody cases—specifically, thirty days from when the trial court mails notice denying a timely motion for new trial. The trial court mailed its denial on February 1, 2024, making March 4, 2024 the last day to file an appeal. Causey's April 18, 2024 filing fell outside this window. The court noted that filing a supervisory writ application does not extend or pause the appeal deadline, and Causey did not request a stay of the deadline.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Timeliness of appeal in family law custody matter
Effect of supervisory writ application on appeal deadlines
Jurisdiction to hear untimely appeal

Procedural posture

Causey appealed a November 2023 relocation and custody judgment, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal for untimeliness after determining it was filed beyond the required thirty-day deadline.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

JORDAN LIPNER-RIZA * NO. 2024-CA-0612

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

TIMOTHY AARON CAUSEY * FOURTH CIRCUIT

* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*******

APPEAL FROM

CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH

NO. 2021-10372, DIVISION “G”

Honorable Veronica E. Henry

******

Judge Karen K. Herman

******

(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Karen K. Herman)

Lee A. Heidingsfelder

WINSBERG, HEIDINSFELDER & GAMBLE, LLC

650 Poydras Street

Suite 2050

New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

Shaye R. Lirette

LAW OFFICE OF SHAYE R. LIRETTE

407 Huey P. Long Ave.

Gretna, LA 70053

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

APPEAL DISMISSED

DECEMBER 1, 2025

KKH

DLD

SCJ Defendant, Timothy Aaron Causey (“Causey”), appeals the November 9,

2023 Judgment granting a Motion to Relocate Principal Residence of Minor Child

in favor of Plaintiff, Jordan Lipner-Riza (“Lipner-Riza”). For the reasons set forth

below, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The parties to this action are the unmarried parents of a son (“R.C.”), born

on March 27, 2017. The record demonstrates the following:

• November 9, 2023, a signed Judgment was rendered granting Lipner-Riza’s

Motion to Relocate and ordering that Lipner-Riza shall have physical

custody of the minor child at all times. The Judgment further set a

visitation/holiday schedule and provided for telephone communication with

the minor child. Causey’s Opposition to Relocation, Motion for Injunctive

Relief, Motion to Modify Consent Judgment, and to Name a Domiciliary

Parent was denied as moot.

• November 13, 2023, Notice of Judgment was issued.

• December 4, 2023, Causey filed a Motion for New Trial.

• December 11, 2023, the Motion for New Trial was denied as untimely.

• February 1, 2024, Notice of Judgment on the denial of the Motion for New

Trial was issued.

• Instead of seeking an appeal, Causey filed a supervisory writ application

seeking review of the denial of the Motion for New Trial.

• March 18, 2024, this Court granted Causey’s writ application (finding that

the Motion for New Trial was timely) but denied relief, finding no abuse of

discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the Motion for New Trial.

Jordan Lipner-Riza v Timothy Aaron Causey, 2024-C-0087, (La. App. 4 Cir.

3/18/24), unpub.

• April 18, 2024, Causey filed a Motion for Appeal from the Judgment

granting Lipner-Riza’s Motion to Relocate.

“Before considering the merits of any appeal, an appellate court has ‘the

duty to determine sua sponte whether [proper] jurisdiction exists, even when the

parties do not raise the issue.’ ” Succession of Hickman, 2022-0730, p. 5 (La. App.

4 Cir. 3/15/23), 359 So.3d 584, 589 (alteration in original) (quoting Lirette v.

Adams, 2022-0552, p. 17 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/31/23), 382 So.3d 122, 133-34).

As reiterated by this Court in Gilberti v. Gilberti, 2022-0291, pp. 3-4 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 11/2/22), 351 So.3d 800, 802-03:

[E]xpedited appeal deadlines exist for certain family law cases.

Under La. C.C.P. art. 3943, “[a]n appeal from a judgment awarding,

modifying, or denying custody, visitation, or support of a person can

be taken only within the delay provided in Article 3942.” Article 3942

provides the delay for taking an appeal from a judgment granting or

refusing an annulment or divorce, which “can be taken only within

thirty days from the applicable date provided in Article 2087(A).” La.

C.C.P. art. 3942(A). Read together, these articles provide that an

appeal from a judgment awarding child support can be taken only

within the following deadlines:

(1) where no timely motion for new trial is filed, thirty days from the

deadline to file a motion for new trial (seven days, exclusive of legal

holidays); or

(2) thirty days from the date of mailing the court’s denial of a timely

filed motion for new trial.

Moreover, it is well-established that an application for supervisory writs has

“no effect on the appeal delays.” Gregory Swafford Family Trust v. Graystar

Mortg., LLC, 2022-00059 (La. 3/15/22), 333 So.3d 1238 (per curiam) (citing

Guillory v. Hartford Ins. Co., 383 So.2d 144, 145 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1980)).

We recognize that pursuant to Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-4(A), “[t]he filing of, or the granting of, a writ application shall not stay further

proceedings unless the trial court or the Court of Appeal expressly orders a stay.”

However, the record in this case does not show that a stay was requested.

As stated above, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 3943, an appeal from a judgment

modifying custody and visitation must be taken within thirty days from the date of

mailing the court’s denial of a timely filed motion for new trial. Here, the record

reflects that the trial court mailed notice on February 1, 2024. March 4, 2024 was

the last day to file a motion for appeal. Causey’s appeal was filed on April 18,

2024. Because the filing of the writ application did not interrupt the appeal delays,

this appeal is untimely.

CONCLUSION

It is evident from a review of the record that this appeal is untimely on its

face. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED