Case Name: PETROLEUM TREATERS, INC. v. HOUMA LAND & OFFSHORE COMPANY, George Platt, Walter O. Bankston and Rudolph Carlos
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1989-06-20
Citations: 545 So. 2d 1300
Docket Number: No. 88 CM 1591
Parties: PETROLEUM TREATERS, INC. v. HOUMA LAND & OFFSHORE COMPANY, George Platt, Walter O. Bankston and Rudolph Carlos.
Judges: Before CARTER, LANIER and LeBLANC, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 545
Pages: 1300–1307

Head Matter:
PETROLEUM TREATERS, INC. v. HOUMA LAND & OFFSHORE COMPANY, George Platt, Walter O. Bankston and Rudolph Carlos.
No. 88 CM 1591.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
June 20, 1989.
Charles E. Lugenbuhl & Stefan Kazmier-ski, New Orleans, for plaintiff.
Gerald C. deLaunay, Lafayette, for defendant.
Before CARTER, LANIER and LeBLANC, JJ.

Opinion:
CARTER, Judge.
Defendants-appellees have filed this motion to dismiss contending plaintiff-appellant's appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction was untimely.
Petroleum Treaters, Inc. filed a petition for preliminary and permanent injunctions, naming as defendants Houma Land & Offshore Company, et al. A hearing was held on August 1 and 2, 1988. At the close of the hearing on August 2, 1988, the trial court rendered an oral judgment denying the motion for preliminary injunction. A written judgment was signed on August 10, 1988. Thereafter, on August 25, 1988, plaintiff filed its motion and order for appeal. Defendants filed this motion to dismiss contending that the appeal is untimely-
The only issue presented is whether the appeal delays run from the date of the oral order or from the date of the written judgment.
Defendants contend that the appeal is untimely because the fifteen day delay for appeal of a preliminary injunction runs from the date that the oral order was rendered and not the date that the written judgment was signed.
Defendants cite several cases which hold that an interlocutory judgment need not be in writing and that a minute entry is sufficient. See Taylor v. Hubbard, 510 So.2d 385 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987); Jacoby v. State, 429 So.2d 209 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 441 So.2d 771 (La.1983); Cox v. Southern Colonial Investment, Inc., 393 So.2d 146 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980); Prejean v. Ortego, 262 So.2d 402 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1972); Simon v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 138 So.2d 465 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1962).
Plaintiff contends its appeal is timely arguing that the fifteen day delay does not begin to run until the written judgment is signed. Plaintiff argues that, even though a preliminary injunction is classified as interlocutory, the judgment must nevertheless be reduced to writing and signed before the delays for appeal commence. In support of its contention, plaintiff cites Louisiana National Bank v. Hebert, 398 So.2d 632 (La.App. 4th Cir.1981) wherein our Brethren of the Fourth Circuit specifically held that an appeal of a preliminary injunction was premature because there was no signed judgment.
LSA-C.C.P. art. 1911 provides:
Except as otherwise provided by law, every final judgment shall be signed by the judge. For the purpose of an appeal as provided in Article 2083, no appeal may be taken from a final judgment until the requirement of this Article has been fulfilled.
LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083 provides:
An appeal may be taken from a final judgment rendered in causes in which appeals are given by law whether rendered after hearing or by default, from an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury, and from a judgment reformed in accordance with a remittitur or additur under Article 1814.
LSA-C.C.P. art. 3612 provides:
There shall be no appeal from an order relating to a temporary restraining order.
An appeal may be taken as a matter of right from an order or judgment relating to a preliminary or final injunction, but such an order or judgment shall not be suspended during the pendency of an appeal unless the court in its discretion so orders.
An appeal from an order or judgment relating to a preliminary injunction must be taken and a bond furnished within fifteen days from the date of the order or judgment. The court in its discretion may stay further proceedings until the appeal has been decided.
Except as provided in this article, the procedure for an appeal from an order or judgment relating to a preliminary or final injunction shall be as provided in Book III.
Overmier v. Traylor, 458 So.2d 499 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), reversed by the Louisiana Supreme Court at 475 So.2d 1094 (La. 1985), addressed the issue of whether reasons for judgment could serve in place of formal judgment granting a preliminary injunction. The First Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal holding that the record did not contain any document which would fit the form required by LSA-C.C.P. art. 1911 for a final judgment, that a final judgment had not been signed, and, therefore, that the appeal was dismissed as premature. In reversing this court, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated:
In dismissing the appeal, the court of appeal reasoned that no appeal can be taken from reasons for judgment and that no final judgment had been signed when the order of appeal was granted. The court based its decision on its interpretation of La.C.C.P. Art. 1911_
The appellate court's interpretation of the codal article resulted in the dismissal of an otherwise valid appeal at a time when it was too late for appellants to file another motion for suspensive appeal. The correct interpretation of Article 1911 is that an appeal granted before the signing of a final judgment is subject to dismissal until the final judgment is signed. However, once the final judgment has been signed, any previously existing defect has been cured, and there is no useful purpose in dismissing the otherwise valid appeal.
This court has consistently recognized that appeals are favored in law. Traigle v. Gulf Coast Aluminum Corp., 399 So.2d 183 (La.1981). Moreover, the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that "(t)he articles of this Code are to be construed liberally, and with due regard for the fact that rules of procedure implement the substantive law and are not an end in themselves." La.C.C.P. Art. 5051. The court of appeal, contrary to this man date, construed Article 1911 very narrowly and deprived appellant of an otherwise valid appeal, without stating any purpose in substantive law for treating a procedural rule as an end in itself. Such an interpretation represents a preference for form over substance.
1 When a "premature" appeal is dis.missed before the judgment is signed, the appellant still has the opportunity to perfect an appeal once the judgment has been signed.
[475 So.2d 1094-1095]
Prom the above, it is inescapable that the appeal delays do not commence to run on a judgment granting or denying a preliminary injunction until the judgment is signed. Overmier v. Traylor, supra; Louisiana National Bank v. Hebert, supra. This is so, regardless of whether the same or a different rule may apply to another type of interlocutory judgment, namely a judgment denying a motion for new trial. Jacoby v. State, supra; Boyd v. Fourchon, Inc., 408 So.2d 880 (La.App. 1st Cir.1981); Cox v. Southern Colonial Investment, Inc., supra; Kleinpeter v. Kleinpeter, 246 So.2d 240 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971).
Additionally, we note that LSA-C.C.P. art. 3612 expressly provides that an appeal from a preliminary injunction "must be taken and a bond furnished within fifteen days from the date of the order or judgment." This clearly gives the appellant fifteen days from either the order or the judgment. This is even more apparent when it is clearly contemplated by all parties and the court that a formal written judgment is to be prepared and presented to the court for reading and signing.
Further, in each of the hereinafter cited cases dealing with the timeliness of an appeal from a denial or grant of a preliminary injunction, a judgment or order had been signed. First Guaranty Bank v. Perilloux, 498 So.2d 239 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1986); Zulu v. Washington, 487 So.2d 1248 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986); Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Westend Development Company, 477 So.2d 829 (La.App. 5th Cir.1985).
In both First Guaranty Bank v. Perilloux, supra, and Zulu v. Washington, supra, this court expressly stated "[t]he fifteen day delay begins to run from the date of judgment, not the mailing of the notice of judgment." It would be illogical and inconsistent to ignore the spirit of Overmier v. Traylor, supra, and to now hold that the fifteen day delay really does not run from the date of judgment, but really commences to run from the date an oral order is issued.
For the above reasons, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied at defendant-appellee's cost.
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.
LANIER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
. The minute entry provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Further the Court ordered that the application for preliminary injunction by Petroleum Treaters, Inc. be, and is hereby denied, except that an injunction is to issue to Mr. Phillip Whitney enjoining him from the use of documents and information retained by him for the use of Houma Land & Offshore Company or any third party. Houma Land & Offshore is to obtain said information and file same with the Clerk of Court's Office. Said documents are to be sealed by the Clerk's office for safe keeping.
The formal written judgment Is to be prepared by Mr. deLaunay and presented to the Court for reading and signing. (Emphasis added)