Opinion
2019 CA 1699 2019 CA 1700
12-21-2020
CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS v. ANTHONY W. DOUGLAS AND THE PERSONNEL BOARD OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE Consolidated with ANTHONY W. DOUGLAS v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Anthony Douglas Baton Rouge, Louisiana Pro Se Appellant Anderson "Andy" Dotson Parish Attorney Gwendolyn K. Brown Sr. Special Asst. Parish Attorney Candace B. Ford Asst. Parish Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellees, City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge and the Department of Public Works
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION APPEALED FROM THE 19th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA
DOCKET NUMBERS 466,636 & 576,529 HONORABLE RICHARD "CHIP" MOORE, JUDGE Anthony Douglas
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Pro Se Appellant Anderson "Andy" Dotson
Parish Attorney
Gwendolyn K. Brown
Sr. Special Asst. Parish Attorney
Candace B. Ford
Asst. Parish Attorney
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellees, City of
Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton
Rouge and the Department of
Public Works BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, and PENZATO, JJ. McDONALD, J.
This is the seventh appeal in this employment dispute between Anthony Douglas, the appellant, and the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge Department of Public Works (City-Parish), the appellee. We will not again repeat the facts and procedural history here. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.
The previous appeals are: City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas I), 00-1736 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), 800 So.2d 448, writ denied, 01-2806 (La. 11/9/01), 801 So.2d 1066, overruled by City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas II), 04-1448 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/29/05), 923 So.2d 166 (en banc), writ denied, 06-0675 (La. 6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1254, enforcement denied, 06-0675 (La. 11/4/11), 75 So.3d 912, writs denied, 11-0328 (La. 4/1/11), 60 So.3d 1255, 06-0675 (La. 12/16/11), 76 So.3d 1189; City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas III), 07-1153 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/8/08), 984 So.2d 746, writ denied, 08-0939 (La. 6/20/08), 983 So.2d 1284; City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas IV), 11-2061, 11-2062 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/8/12), 2012 WL 2061419, writ denied, 12-1575 (La. 10/12/12), 98 So.3d 875; City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas V), 16-0655 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/12/17), 218 So.3d 158; and City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas VI), 18-0247 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/21/18), 2018 WL 4520092. --------
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue. As an appellate court, we cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment. La. C.C.P. arts. 1841 & 2083A; Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Glass, 17-1760 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/6/18), 2018 WL 6381915 *2. A valid judgment must be precise, definite, and certain; must contain decretal language disposing of or dismissing the claims in the case; and, 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. These determinations should be evident from the judgment's language without reference to other documents in the record. Lehman v. Benasco, 19-0779 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/26/20), 2020 WL 913508 *2; Mizell v. Willis, 19-0141 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/15/19), 290 So.3d 247, 250.
The August 7, 2019 judgment from which Mr. Douglas appeals herein, inter alia: (1) grants the City-Parish's exception of res judicata and (2) denies Mr. Douglas's "petition to annul judgment." But, the appealed judgment does not expressly dismiss Mr. Douglas's claims nor does it identify the specific judgment Mr. Douglas's petition seeks to annul. Although Mr. Douglas's petition states that he seeks to annul an April 30, 2007 judgment, the August 7, 2019 judgment from which he appeals, and which denies his petition, does not specify such; and, reference to other documents in the record to determine such is not allowed. Mizell, 290 So.3d at 250. Without an express dismissal of Mr. Douglas's claims, or a denial or dismissal of Mr. Douglas's petition to annul a specifically-identified judgment, we conclude the April 7, 2019 judgment is not a valid, final appealable judgment, because it is not precise, definite, and certain. Thus, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review this matter, and we must dismiss this appeal. See Lehman, 2020 WL 913508 at *2.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we dismiss Anthony Douglas's appeal of the August 7, 2019 judgment and assess all appeal costs to him.
APPEAL DISMISSED.