Case Name: John UPDEGRAFF v. PARISH OF ST. BERNARD
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1983-06-01
Citations: 433 So. 2d 863
Docket Number: No. CA-0151
Parties: John UPDEGRAFF v. PARISH OF ST. BERNARD.
Judges: Before REDMANN, SCHOTT, LOBRA-NO, WARD and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 433
Pages: 863–866

Head Matter:
John UPDEGRAFF v. PARISH OF ST. BERNARD.
No. CA-0151.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 1, 1983.
Richard A. Tonry, Chalmette, Bruce G. Reed, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Marcel Gueniot, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chal-mette, for defendant-appellee.
Before REDMANN, SCHOTT, LOBRA-NO, WARD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Opinion:
WILLIAMS, Judge.
This appeal arises from procedural aspects of the trial court's maintenance of a peremptory exception of failure to join an indispensable party, filed against plaintiff, John Updegraff, by defendant, the Parish of St. Bernard. A second peremptory exception of no cause of action was denied. At the maintenance of the exception in the court below, plaintiff was given thirty days to amend his petition to join the Parish of St. Bernard CETA Program and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Employment Security, as parties defendant, or else have his case dismissed. Plaintiff timely amended his petition to include these additional defendants. We also note the trial court's ruling on the exception did not dismiss the action against the Parish of St. Bernard, but merely continued the trial on the merits .until all parties were joined.
Plaintiff was an employee of the Parish of St. Bernard CETA Program. He had worked in the program a little over one year and in that time had been injured, on the job, five or six times. After his last injury, plaintiff was terminated for being an unsafe worker and creating hazards dangerous to himself and his co-workers. Each time plaintiff was hurt, including his last injury, he applied for and received Workers' Compensation benefits without protest from defendant. The merits of plaintiff's suit alleged that his dismissal was due to his having made a claim for compensation and was therefore discriminatory under the provisions of R.S. 23:1361.
An appeal may be taken from a final judgment or from an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury. La.C.C.P. art. 2083.
A final judgment is one which determines the merits of a controversy either in whole or in part. La.C.C.P. art. 1841. An interlocutory judgment is one which does not determine the merits of a cause but decides only preliminary matters in the course of the action. Id. Since the plaintiffs were given an opportunity to amend their petition, expecting to proceed to trial, the judgment on the above exceptions were not final judgments.
The issues on appeal involve only the correctness of the trial court's ruling on the exceptions. A peremptory exception of no cause of action would be a final judgment were the exception maintained. But a denial of an exception of no cause of action is an interlocutory judgment and not appeala-ble where there has been no showing of irreparable harm. La.C.C.P. arts. 1841 and 2083; Brian v. Target, Inc., 395 So.2d 372 (La.App. 1st Cir.1981); Wallace v. Pan American Fire and Casualty Ins. Co., 386 So.2d 158 (La.App. 3d Cir.1980); Millet v. Johnson, 352 So.2d 1301 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977); Mauterer v. Tillery, 328 So.2d 755 (La.App. 1st Cir.1976), writ ref. 365 So.2d 245 (La.1978).
Merely requiring the parties to go to trial does not constitute irreparable harm. Brian, supra; Mauterer, supra. The test for determining whether an interlocutory judgment may cause irreparable injury is whether the procedural error will have such an effect on the merits of the case, that the appellate court cannot correct an erroneous decision on the merits. Bernard v. Allstate Ins. Co., 396 So.2d 548 (La.App. 3d Cir.1981). We think that it would not.
The second issue on appeal is the maintenance of the peremptory exception of failure to join an indispensable party. La.C.C.P. art. 934 provides for the effects of sustaining a peremptory exception. This article provides that if a plaintiff may amend his petition to cure the grounds for the exception, the trial court shall order amendment within a reasonable time. If the grounds of the exception cannot be cured by proper amendment, or if plaintiff fails to amend within the time given, the action shall be dismissed. Id. A defect such as the absence of an indispensable party may be remedied by amendment and the trial court must allow plaintiff opportunity to amend his petition. Hodges v. LaSalle Parish Police Jury, 368 So.2d 1117 (La.App. 3d Cir.1979); Aetna Finance Co. v. Antoine, 343 So.2d 1195 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977). We find that the trial court correctly permitted plaintiff to amend his petition to join an indispensable party, because the trial court is without discretion and is required to do so. Wheelahan v. State through Louisiana State Claims Review Bd., 376 So.2d 576 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979). Dismissal of the suit would have been error. Newman v. Polite, 400 So.2d 1186 (La.App. 1st Cir.1981); Simms v. Braren, 252 So.2d 459 (La.App. 4th Cir.1971).
According to LSA C.C.P. art. 2083 an appeal can only be taken from a final judgment or from an interlocutory judgment if it will cause irreparable injury. Since the judgment in this ease is neither, the appeal cannot be maintained. Schwartzenburg v. Indian Hills Subdivision Residents, 386 So.2d 187 (La.App. 3d Cir.1980). Therefore, we find that the judgment below was interlocutory in nature, that there is no right to appeal, and that it should be dismissed.
Since there is no right to appeal the judgment in question, we are required to notice this lack of jurisdiction on our own motion. La.C.C.P. art. 2162; Bernard, supra; Bunkie Bank and Trust Co. v. Avoyelles Parish Police Jury, 347 So.2d 1305 (La.App. 1st Cir.1977); Booker v. Waguespack, 331 So.2d 110 (La.App. 1st Cir.1976); Brumfield v. Community Mobile Homes, Inc., 315 So.2d 901 (La.App. 1st Cir.1975). Since this matter is not properly before us, we may dismiss such an appeal at any time. La.C.C.P. art. 2162; Kinchen v. Kinchen, 256 La. 28, 235 So.2d 81 (La.1970); on remand 244 So.2d 316 (La.App. 1st Cir.1970), application not considered, 257 La. 854, 244 So.2d 608; on remand, 249 So.2d 926 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1970); Malbrough v. Kiff, 312 So.2d 915 (La.App. 1st Cir.1975); Sims v. Louisiana Private Schools, Inc., 223 So.2d 187 (La.App. 1st Cir.1969).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment to deny the peremptory exception of no cause of action and the maintenance of the peremptory exception of failure to join an indispensable party insofar as plaintiff was ordered to amend his petition to properly join additional parties defendant. Since the maintenance of the second exception did not end the litigation and plaintiff timely amended his petition, we conclude that dismissal of the appeal is proper in order to permit a trial on the merits, allowing the additional defendants to present their defense. Appeal is dismissed at plaintiffs costs.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
REDMANN, C.J., and SCHOTT, J., dissent.