Case Name: Patricia K. McNEELY v. SAFE HAVEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2006-05-10
Citations: 930 So. 2d 293
Docket Number: No. 05-1609
Parties: Patricia K. McNEELY v. SAFE HAVEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
Judges: Court composed of JOHN D. SAUNDERS, GLENN B. GREMILLION, and ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, Judges.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 930
Pages: 293–296

Head Matter:
Patricia K. McNEELY v. SAFE HAVEN ENTERPRISES, INC.
No. 05-1609.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
May 10, 2006.
Stanley Stephen Spring II, Spring, Spring & Associates, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant, Safe Haven Enterprises, Inc., John and Alta Baker.
Milo Addison Nickel, Jr., The Nickel Law Firm, LLC, Lake Charles, LA, for Defendant-Appellee, MB Industries, LLC.
Patricia K. McNeely, In Proper Person, Morse, LA.
Court composed of JOHN D. SAUNDERS, GLENN B. GREMILLION, and ELIZABETH A. PICKETT, Judges.

Opinion:
PICKETT, Judge.
hThe defendant, Safe Haven Enterprises, Inc., (Safe Haven) appeals an order of the trial court holding John and Alta Baker in contempt of court for failing to attend a deposition.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Patricia McNeely filed suit against Safe Haven on October 25, 2004. On April 18, 2005, Safe Haven filed a reconventional demand against McNeely, and named several other parties as defendants-in-recon-vention. This appeal arises from the discovery phase of the litigation.
On June 8, 2005, M.B. Industries, LLC, (MBI) one of the defendants named by Safe Haven, filed a Notice of Deposition of John and Anita [sic] Baker, with the depositions scheduled for June 10, 2005. The Bakers are the principals of Safe Haven Enterprises, Inc, a Louisiana corporation. The notice was served on the Bakers' attorney, who at all times also represented Safe Haven, by a private process server on June 9, 2005. The Bakers were in Florida, and filed a Motion to Quash the depositions, which the trial court denied. The attorney for the Bakers made the opposing attorneys aware that his clients would not appear. Nevertheless, the attorneys who scheduled the depositions did appear at the appointed place at the appointed time and conducted a proces verbal.
McNeely and MBI filed Motions for Contempt. After a hearing on July 26, 2005, the trial court found both John and Alta Baker in contempt of court and fined them each $250.00. He signed an order to that effect on July 29, 2005. Safe Haven sought a rehearing, which the trial court denied. Safe Haven then filed the instant appeal.
lain response to the appeal, MBI has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. They argue that the issues in this appeal have been reviewed by this court in applications for supervisory writs and that Safe Haven lacks standing to appeal the order finding John and Alta Baker in contempt. Them motion was referred to the merits. The Bakers filed a Motion to File a Supplemental Brief, arguing that the appeal of the orders requiring them to pay attorneys fees should be heard in this appeal. That, too, was referred to the merits.
MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL
The Notice of Deposition which was the impetus of this appeal was directed to John and Alta Baker. The trial court held the Bakers in contempt of court at a hearing held June 26, 2005. The trial court signed an order holding the Bakers in contempt on July 29, 2005. The Bakers paid the fine imposed by the court. The appeal of the contempt citation was filed by Safe Haven, and Safe Haven was granted a devolutive appeal. The original brief to this court was filed by Safe Haven. Safe Haven, which as a corporation is a separate juridical person under La.Civ. Code art. 24, was not the party held in contempt of court and lacks standing to appeal the order holding the Bakers in contempt. The Bakers, not Safe Haven, have the right to an appeal.
In a brief filed by the Bakers in response to the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, they state, "In point of fact, the only Appellant Brief of record herein was filed by John Baker and Alta Baker[.]" They also argue that this appeal was filed by the Bakers, and not Safe Haven, so the motion to dismiss must fail. The record before us includes only one motion seeking an appeal, filed by Safe Haven, and one order logranting an appeal, to Safe Haven. As Safe Haven lacks standing to appeal the judgment of contempt, the appeal is dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
SAUNDERS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.