text:
    Frank MILLSAP, Jr. v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Prison and Richard Stalder, Secretary of Corrections.
    No. 2010-CI-0156.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Millsap Jr., Frank; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 561-328; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0511.

Denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Curtis E. DILLON v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Richard Stalder, Secretary.
    No. 2010-CI-0157.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Dillon, Curtis E.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 495,-146; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CA 0245.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Donald R. NELSON v. STATE Of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0166.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Nelson, Donald R.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 469-103; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-0584.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brenda LANGLINAIS.
    No. 2010-KH-0176.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Langlinais, Brenda; -Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 07-2426; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-422.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Larry J. JULIAN, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0178.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Julian Jr., Larry J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 70,904; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-328.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derek Nathaniel MOORE.
    No. 2010-K-1304.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Moore, Derek Nathaniel; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 05-07-0341; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2186.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Dino Jay SCHWERTZ.
    No. 2010-KO-1315.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Schwertz, Dino Jay; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 449563; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2183.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brandon BRUE.
    No. 2010-K-1317.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Brue, Brandon; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 73,624-F; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2281.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Billy R. TAYLOR.
    No. 2010-K-1319.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 434251; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2060.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marcus EVANS.
    No. 2010-K-1321.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Evans, Marcus; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 07-07-0393; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0013.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jose L. CASTRO.
    No. 2010-KO-1323.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Castro, Jose L.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 05-4125; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-887.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Rontrell WISE.
    No. 2010-KO-1324.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Wise, Rontrell; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 07-19; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 EA 1753.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Nathaniel DOWL, Jr.
    No. 2010-KO-1325.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Dowl Jr., Nathaniel; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 474-843; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-0989.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Marcus QUINN, Sr.
    No. 2010-K-1355.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Quinn Sr., Marcus; —Defendant; Applying For Writ on Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 04-1397; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 09-1382.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Albert MICKEL.
    No. 2010-K-1357.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Mickel, Albert.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 09-2206; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-953.

Denied.

JOHNSON and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Lakeisha Shanae ADAMS.
    No. 2010-KO-1375.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Adams, Lakeisha Shanae; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 06 CRI 94104; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2015.

Denied.


text:
    Kelley BURNS, Wife of/and Terry R. Burns, Adam Hlafrance, Ryan Lafrance and Mervin Autin, Jr., No. 2010-C-2283 Has Natural Tutor for the Minor Child, Abby Autin. v. CLK INVESTMENTS V, L.L.C., 1st Lake Properties, Inc., 1st Lake Realty, Inc., and State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-2283.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Burns et al., Kelley; Burns, Terry R.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. I, No. 2004-02127; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0277.

Denied.


text:
    Keith ROBINSON v. TEXTRON MARINE AND LAND SYSTEMS.
    No. 2010-C-2378.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Robinson, Keith; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District “Eight”, No. 07-5750; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0333.

Denied.


text:
    In re APPEAL OF the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 2010-ADMIN-1268.
    No. 2010-OB-2457.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Kenner, Anthony; —Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No. 2010-ADMIN-1268.

Denied.


text:
    Richard J. HEATH v. CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA.
    No. 2010-C-2493.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Heath, Richard J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 230,927; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 10-280.

Denied.


text:
    Josie Stokes WEATHERLY v. FONSECA & ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al.
    No. 2010-C-2497.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Weatherly, Josie Stokes; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Coui't Div. L, No. 2008-6778; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-495.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Derrick GABRIEL and Patrick Gabriel, Individually and on behalf of their Mother, Mable Gabriel, Decedent v. LOUISIANA ORGAN PROCUREMENT AGENCY and Dr. Thiagarajan Ramcharan.
    No. 2010-C-2515.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Gabriel, Derrick et al.; Gabriel, Patrick; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2007-1411; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-251.

Denied.


text:
    Patricia P. ANTLEY and Ricky Antley v. STATE of Louisiana, through the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM.
    No. 2010-C-2518.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Board of Supervisors; State of Louisiana, et al.; University of Louisiana System; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Natchitoches, 10th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 76,880; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-316.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J, would grant.


text:
    A & B BOLT & SUPPLY, INC. v. David S. DAWES and Whitco Supply, L.L.C.
    No. 2010-C-2563.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re A & B Bolt & Supply, Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 2003-3999; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 10-492, 09-1563.

Denied.


text:
    Shannon BOURQUE v. FIRE MOUNTAIN RESTAURANTS, L.L.C.
    No. 2010-C-2566.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Bourque, Shannon; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 119,421; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0555.

Denied.


text:
    Robert KALTENBACH v. Dianne Sue NELSON.
    No. 2010-C-2567.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 7, 2011.
   In re Kaltenbach, Robert; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 71200-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-160.

Denied.


text:
    Noretta THOMAS and Demetrice Butler, Each Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. A. WILBERT & SONS, INC., L.L.C. and XYZ Insurance Company c/w Troy Robichaux, Shannon Robichaux, Michael J. Tuminello, Sr., and Olive D. Tuminello v. State of Louisiana, through the Department of Health and Hospitals and through the Department of Environmental Quality, and Dow Chemical Company.
    No. 2011-CC-0068.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 10, 2011.
   In re Dow Chemical Company; Dupree, Ivy; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Divs. A, B, Nos. 66,803, 55,127; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0017.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    In re Benjamin CARPENTER.
    No. 2011-OB-0035.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 12, 2011.
   In re Carpenter, Benjamin; —Plaintiff; Applying For Permission to Take Bar Examination.

Denied. See S.Ct. Rule XVII, Section 4(C).

WEIMER, J., would grant.


text:
    John JOHNSON, et al. v. NURSEFINDERS, INC., et al.
    No. 2011-CC-0043.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 12, 2011.
   In re National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg Pa.; Nursefinders Inc. et al.; Ray, Harriet Fleming; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. E, Nos. 04-2500, 2009-6409; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1475.

Stay denied. Writ denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Nicole HELTZ v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LSU A & M COLLEGE.
    No. 2011-CC-0094.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 12, 2011.
   In re Heltz, Nicole; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. M, No. 2010-8897; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0037.

Stay denied; writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth MOSLEY.
    No. 2010-KK-2713.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 12, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 475-292; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1670.

Denied.


text:
    CITY OF LAFAYETTE v. Joseph B. CORMIER.
    No. 2010-K-1480.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Cormier, Joseph B.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, City Court of Lafayette, No. 2008-2664; 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 124,609; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 10-00125.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    Freddie Lee WISNER, Sr. v. PDQ CONSTRUCTION CO. and City of Shreveport.
    No. 2010-C-2553.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Wisner Sr., Freddie Lee; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 1W, No. 0607458; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,543-WCA.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    BILYEU BUCKS, LLC, et al. v. DIRECTECH SOUTHWEST, INC., et al.
    No. 2010-CC-2591.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Bilyeu Bucks LLC et al.; Bilyeu, Mary H.; Bilyeu, Woody D.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Winn, 8th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 41292; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 45870-CW, 45913-CW.

Not considered, not timely filed.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony MORGAN c/w Alvin Bently c/w Frank Magee c/w Dennis Lee c/w Richard Rayford c/w Clyde Brumfield.
    No. 2010-KK-1728.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Morgan, Anthony, et al.; —Defendants; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s action dated November 19, 2010; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, Nos. 271-267, 342-359, 389-832, 371-067, 359-171; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1395.

Rehearing denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. William S. CARTER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2574.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Carter, William S.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated November 12, 2010; Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court, Div. B, No. 145,006; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,450-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Johnathan MYERS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2731.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Myers, Johnathan; —Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this court’s action dated November 19, 2010, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 06-4969; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-86S.

Reconsideration denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Brian A. COX.
    No. 2009-K-0667.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Cox, Brian; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Desoto, 42nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 08-17881; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44, 448-KW.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick Jerome ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-OK-2493.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Allen, Derrick Jerome; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 34521; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0271.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jonathan BAILEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2597.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Bailey, Jonathan; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 459-100; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1328.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael CROSBY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-OK-2668.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Crosby Michael; -Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Peter W. GONSOULIN, II v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-2800.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Gonsoulin II, Peter W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 427894; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1787.

Denied. Result correct.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John F. BONVILLAIN, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0177.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In r Bonvillain Sr., John F.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 393,225; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 2025.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerry L. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0179.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Williams, Jerry L.; -Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 246,465; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45, 150-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel Kimberly SAMPY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0180.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Sampy, Kimberly; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 103,883; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01047.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John EDMONSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0181.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Edmonson, John; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 15, 843,15, 844.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Aldifonso F. GONZALES v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0182.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Gonzales, Aldifonso F.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 243472-1; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009-KW-2044.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Errick Jermaine ARCENEAUX v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0186.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Arceneaux, Errick Jermaine; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 1627896, 16630-96; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01404.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ned BIAGAS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0187.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   IN RE: Biagas, Ned; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 327-676; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1580;

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick CHAIRS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0197.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Chairs, Derrick; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 98-3724; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-993.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Sugar Ray LEWIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0198.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Lewis, Sugar Ray; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 406-677; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1610.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 93-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Frank WINDING v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0199.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Winding, Frank; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 289-937; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1658.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terrence Knight BENOIT v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0200.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Benoit, Terrence Knight; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR-04-1005; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH-09-0687.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Michael FASOLA v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0201.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Fasola, Michael; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 01-378; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KH-943.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Benyale DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0202.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Davis, Benyale; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 448-349; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1581.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick Jerome ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0646.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Allen, Derrick Jerome; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 11-98-303; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009-KW-2286.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Derrick Jerome ALLEN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-OK-0916.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Allen, Derrick Jerome; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div., No. 5-94-0677; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010-KW-0037.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ekrick ARCENEAUX v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2010-KH-0991.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Arceneaux, Errick; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedíal Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 16278-96; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01217.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Beryl Anne DELUZAIN.
    No. 2010-K-1318.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 393, 975; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 1893.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Robert JACOBS.
    No. 2010-KO-1376.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Jacobs, Robert; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 107,623; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1380.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Carey VALLIER, Jr.
    No. 2010-KO-1380.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Vallier Jr., Carey; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 04-K-4782-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1249.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth MAYO.
    No. 2010-KO-1381.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Mayo, Kenneth; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 478664; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 2004.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cheri H. HAYDEN.
    No. 2010-KO-1382.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Hayden, Cheri H.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 08-1709; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-954.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. George E. KNIGHT, II.
    No. 2010-K-1425.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Knight II, George E.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 05-F0892; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,231-KA.

Denied.

CLARK, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Montraygo Latron DRAKE.
    No. 2010-KO-1468.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Drake, Montraygo Latron; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 08F17444; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,172-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Gary J. REESE, Jr.
    No. 2010-KO-1469.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Reese Jr., Cary J.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 07-6194; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-1058.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. George A. PRESTON.
    No. 2010-K-1492.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Preston, George A.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 06-6508; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-856.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony Dean CRAIG.
    No. 2010-K-1533.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Craig, Anthony Dean; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 63,505; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1547.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jonathan Jude GILBERT.
    No. 2010-KO-1550.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Gilbert, Jonathan Jude; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 45358; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-31.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Quantrell M. KELSON.
    No. 2010-KO-1575.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Kelson, Quantrell M.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 486-479; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-0204.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Eric JONES.
    No. 2010-KO-1576.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Jones, Eric; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 472-207; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-1142.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Zephan T. GIVENS.
    No. 2010-KO-1584.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Givens, Zephan T.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 05F2994; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-354-KA.

Denied.

CLARK, J., recused.


text:
    Willie J. ZENO, Sr. v. Charles J. FORET.
    No. 2010-C-2482.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Zeno Sr., Willie J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. J, No. 2009-5791; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-330.

Denied.


text:
    Seymore SIMMONS, Individually and on behalf of his deceased Wife, Robin Simmons, Wayne Thomas, Jr., Individually and on behalf of his deceased Mother, Robin Simmons, Justin Thomas Individually and on behalf of his deceased Mother, Robin Simmons and Wayne Thomas, Sr., Natural Tutor, on behalf of his Minor Child Jirus Thomas, Individually and on behalf of his deceased Mother, Robin Simmons v. BAUMER FOODS, INC., Task Force Staffing Services, Inc., Zurich Insurance Company, and National Union Fire-Pittsburgh Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-2495.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2009-8523; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-1739.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ„ would grant.


text:
    Seymore SIMMONS, Individually and on Behalf of His Deceased Wife, Robin Simmons, Wayne Thomas, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of His Deceased Mother, Robin Simmons, Justin Thomas Individually and on Behalf of His Deceased Mother, Robin Simmons and Wayne Thomas, Sr., Natural Tutor, on Behalf of His Minor Child Jirus Thomas, Individually and on Behalf of His Deceased Mother, Robin Simmons v. BAUMER FOODS, INC., Task Force Staffing Services, Inc., Zurich Insurance Company, and National Union Fire-Pittsburgh Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-2500.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Baumer Foods, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2009-8523; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-1739.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.


text:
    Seymore SIMMONS, Individually and on Behalf of his Deceased Wife, Robin Simmons, Wayne Thomas, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of his Deceased Mother, Robin Simmons, Justin Thomas Individually and on Behalf of his Deceased Mother, Robin Simmons and Wayne Thomas, Sr., Natural Tutor, on Behalf of his Minor Child Jirus Thomas, Individually and on Behalf of his Deceased Mother, Robin Simmons v. BAUMER FOODS, INC., Task Force Staffing Services, Inc., Zurich Insurance Company, and National Union Fire-Pittsburgh Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-C-2517.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Task Force Staffing Services, Inc.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2009-8523; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-1739.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ„ would grant.


text:
    Scott Anthony PLAISANCE, et al. v. OUR LADY OF LOURDES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al.
    No. 2010-C-2520.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Plaisance, Monique Chaisson; Plaisance, Scott Anthony et al.; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2009-2570-D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. 10-348, 09-1502.

Denied.


text:
    Dana BORDELON (Jacobs) v. William JACOBS.
    No. 2010-CC-2584.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Bordelon, Dana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 576-532; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-738.

Denied.


text:
    Melissa K. LYNCHER, Lissa Anne Lyncker, William Henry Lyncker III and Jacob Ryan Lyncker v. DESIGN ENGINEERING, INC., Circle, Incorporated, Orleans Parish Levee District, and State of Louisiana, through Department of Transportation and Development.
    No. 2010-C-2592.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Lyncker III, William Henry; Lyncker, Melissa K. et al.; Lyncker, Jacob Ryan; Lyncker, Lissa Anne; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2005-1914; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0740.

Denied.


text:
    Teresa B. WISS v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Quinnette W. Byrd, Lafayette Insurance Company, Audubon Pro Home Improvement Co., Inc., Wade B. Guilbeau, Jr., City of Kenner and Dominick A. Rodi.
    No. 2010-CC-2597.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re City of Kenner; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. L, No. 676-063; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-890.

Denied.


text:
    Flora WILLIAMS v. James STEWART, Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Department, City of New Orleans.
    No. 2010-C-2598.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Gusman, Sheriff Marlin N.; Stewart, James et al.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 04-15103; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0457.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Edgar J. SAIZAN, Jr. v. POINTE COUPEE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2010-C-2599.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Saizan Jr., Edgar J.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 38,811; to the Coui’t of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 0757.

Denied.


text:
    Ricky Dean James LANDRY v. SUPREME CONTRACTORS, INC.
    No. 2010-CC-2603.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Gray Insurance Company; Supreme Contractors, Inc. et al.; —Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 03, No. 09-07038; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 10-00897.

Denied.


text:
    RIO LINDO, INC. d/b/a Coco River Company v. Michael J. DAVIS and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Individually and as Trustee, in Trust, for the Registered Holders of Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-R-3.
    No. 2010-CC-2604.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Coco River Company; Rio Lindo Inc. d/b/a; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court. Div. A, No. 680-889; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-757.

Denied.


text:
    Doretha Z. WALKER, William Rau, Gerson Realty Co., Inc., Zor, Inc., John J. Shuh, Jr., Bertha L. Pailet, Peter Chailet, Robert J. Bisso, Gary A. Bisso, and Clarance Ancar, individually and on behalf of those Similarly Situated v. AMID/METRO PARTNERSHIP, LLC, and City of New Orleans.
    No. 2010-CC-2606.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re City of New Orleans; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 2007-14794; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0702.

Denied.


text:
    UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. Thomas ZENTNER; Nelson Zentner, Sartor & Snellings, L.L.C.; and Westport Insurance Corporation.
    No. 2010-CC-2607.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re United Services Automobile Association; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 577,735; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1384.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Jaime L. ERASO.
    No. 2010-KK-2609.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Eraso, Jaime L.; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 10-09-0034; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1528.

Denied.


text:
    Lola BASS v. Malcolm WASHINGTON, Calco Travel, Inc. and Lincoln Insurance Company.
    No. 2010-CC-2617.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Calco Travel Inc.; Lincoln Insurance Company; Washington, Malcolm et al.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 89,913; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1356.

Denied.


text:
    UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. Thomas ZENTNER; Nelson Zentner, Sartor & Snellings, L.L.C.; and Westport Insurance Corporation.
    No. 2010-CC-2628.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    Jan. 14, 2011.
   In re Sartor & Snellings L.L.C.; West-port Insurance Corporation; Zentner, Nelson; Zentner, Thomas et al.; —Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 577,735; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1384.

Denied.


author: FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, Judge.

text:
    INPUT/OUTPUT MARINE SYSTEMS, INC. v. WILSON GREATBATCH, TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Wilson Greatbatch, Inc., and Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a Electrochem Lithium Batteries.
    No. 10-CA-477.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 29, 2010.
    Miles P. Clements, Joseph N. Mole, Paul C. Thibodeaux, Attorneys at Law, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellees.

      Joseph W. Looney, Louis C. Lacour, Jr., Raymond P. Ward, Attorneys at Law, New Orleans, LA, Michael E. Maxwell, Stephen W. Kelkenberg, Attorneys at Law, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants/Appellants.
    Panel composed of Judges MARION F. EDWARDS, SUSAN M. CHEHARDY, and FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER.
   FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, Judge.

13This Court, sua sponte, notices, for the reasons that follow, our lack of jurisdiction of the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ appeals in this matter because there is no valid final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals without prejudice and remand this matter so that a proper final judgment may be rendered.

The trial judge first signed an alleged judgment on October 5, 2009 that for the reasons that follow we determine was an invalid, void, and unenforceable judgment. The trial judge and the parties, however, considered that “judgment” to be a valid judgment. As a result, all of the proceedings that followed were based on an error of law. Importantly, two subsequent rulings; namely, a purported judgment of October 14, 2009 and November 30, 2009 rulings on post-trial motions, which were based on an error of law are without legal effect and are made |4moot by our dismissal of the appeals. Therefore, the parties are restored to their respective positions following the jury verdict on October 1, 2009.

We are aware that a successor judge will now have to render a proper valid judgment on remand. For that reason, we point out below the confusion in this record regarding the proper named defendants in such a judgment. We also point out that the jury considered all of the causes of action that were before the court. In this case, the plaintiffs waived two causes of action/claims and struck another from its pleadings. In addition, one cause of action was dismissed following a motion for directed verdict made by the defendants.

Preliminarily, we note that the record and the briefs before this Court reveal numerous inconsistent references to the named defendants. In briefs before this Court, the plaintiffs refer to the defendants as: “Wilson Greatbatch, Inc. and Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electro-chem Lithium Batteries.” On the other hand, the defendants refer to the defendants as: “Wilson Greatbatch, Technologies, Inc. and Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electrochem Lithium Batteries.” In the caption to this appeal, we have included all of these names. In this opinion, we refer to the parties as “plaintiffs” and “defendants.”

| ^Procedural History

The Parties

The plaintiffs, Input/Output, Inc. and I/O Marine Systems, Inc., filed suit against the defendants, Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc., Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electrochem Lithium Batteries, and WGL Intermediate Holdings, Inc. In essence, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants wrongfully used the plaintiffs’ trade secrets and confidential information in order to develop a competing specialized battery for use in marine seismic equipment referred to as the “Bird.”

The plaintiffs filed first and second amended petitions on July 8, 2003 and July 28, 2009, respectively. Among other things, the first amendment added ‘WGL Intermediate Holdings, Inc.” as a defendant while the second amendment added causes of action. In the prayer for the second amended petition, the plaintiffs prayed for judgment against the defendants consistent with the prayers contained in the original petition and the first amended petition. The prayer in the first amended petition, prayed for judgment against “Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc., Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electrochem Lithium Batteries, and WGL Intermediate Holdings, Inc.”

On July 28, 2003, Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc. and Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electrochem Lithium Batteries filed exceptions to the first amended petition including the improper joinder of WGL Intermediate Holdings, Inc. as an additional defendant on the basis it was not a proper party. The trial judge summarily denied the exceptions.

I (¡In 2007, at a motion for summary judgment hearing, the defendants’ counsel discussed discontinuing Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc. as a defendant. Although the trial judge agreed, there was no judgment to that effect.

Among the numerous inconsistencies noted by this Court, the record reveals the following varied references to the named defendants:

(1) Wilson Greatbatch, Technologies, Inc. and Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electrochem Lithium Batteries and its successor Electrochem Solutions, Inc.
(2)Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd.
(3) Wilson Greatbatch, Technologies, Inc. and Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electrochem Lithium Batteries
(4) Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc., Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electrochem Lithium Batteries, and WGL Intermediate Holdings, Inc.

During opening statements, the plaintiffs’ counsel referred to his client as Dig-iCourse which was acquired by I/O and is now ION Geophysical. He referred to the defendants as “Wilson Greatbatch” or “WGL.” During opening statements, defense counsel referred to his client as “Greatbatch”. He also stated that “Great-batch” had a division called “Electrochem.” He referred to the other party as “DigiC-ourse.”

At trial, the jury was given interrogatories with the following caption: “DigiCourse/ION, Inc. and I/O Marine Systems, Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc., Wilson Greatbatch, Ltd. d/b/a as Electrochem Lithium Batteries, and WGL Intermediate Holdings, Inc.” The jury, however, was asked to answer questions regarding “plaintiffs” and “defendants” without reference to any |7named defendants. At trial, based on the agreement of the parties, the jury charges referred to the parties as “DigiCourse/ION” and “Gre-atbatch.”

On the sixth day of trial, the plaintiffs’ counsel expressed concern about naming the proper defendants. He offered a stipulation that a company named Electro-chem Solutions, Inc. was a successor to William Greatbatch, Ltd. The trial judge stated that she would re-visit this matter later in the proceedings. The record does not contain any further discussion.

To sum up, the confusion concerning the proper party defendants is present throughout the record and on appeal.

The Verdict

On October 1, 2009, the following causes of action were presented to the jury in the jury interrogatories and the jury instructions: fraud, violations of the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligence, and breach of contract. The jury made factual findings and ultimately concluded as follows (emphasis added):

Fraud
“[T]he Plaintiffs suffered] actual loss as a result of Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations.”
Louisiana Uniform trade Secrets Act “[T]he Defendants [did not] obtain Plaintiffs’ trade secrets through improper means.”
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act “[T]he Plaintiffs sufferfed] actual damages as a result of Defendants’ violation of LUTPA [Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act].”
Negligence
“[T]he defendants fail[ed] to act as a reasonably prudent business would have acted under the circumstances.”
|sThe jury answered negatively to the question: “But for the Defendants’ conduct, would the Plaintiffs have sustained damages in the absence of Defendants’ conduct?”

Thus, as to liability, the jury answered affirmatively regarding the following causes of action: fraud and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Next, the jury was presented with a question regarding damages. The jury found that the “amount of damages ... Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of Defendants’ actions” insofar as fraud, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices act, was $15,738,411 (“Compensation for Lost Profits”), $6,000,000 (“Compensation for Price Reductions of the Bird Batteries”), and none for “Compensation for Price Reductions on the Acoustic batteries.” (Emphasis added).

After deciding these damages, the jury was presented with interrogatories regarding the cause of action for breach of contract. The jury answered affirmatively to the question: “[T]he Plaintiffs suffer[ed] damages within five years of the date that Plaintiffs disclosed information to the Defendants under the contract.”

The interrogatories on the breach of contract cause of action ended with the following interrogatory (emphasis in original):

Regardless of any award under Question 5 [the question regarding the amount of damages the “plaintiffs” suffered as a result of the “defendants’ ” actions with regard to the fraud, Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets act, Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, and negligence], please express in terms of dollars and cents the amount of damages, if any, which Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of Defendants breach of contract. Please limit your calculations to five years following the date that Plaintiffs last disclosed information to Defendants under the contract. This damage amount will not be added to damages awarded under Question five, if any.

The jury found that the “Plaintiffs” suffered $2,500,000 in damages as “Compensation for Lost Profits” “as a result of Defendants breach of contract.” |9 (Emphasis added). The jury found no damages for breach of contract as to “Compensation for Price reductions of the Bird Batteries” and “Compensation for Price Reductions of the Acoustic batteries.” However, the jury was instructed that “[t]his damage amount will not be added to damages awarded under Question 5, if any.” Question 5 concerned the damages insofar as fraud, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices act.

Thereafter, the trial judge signed two alleged “judgments.”

The “Judgments”

The First “Judgment”

On October 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion, without first providing it to opposing counsel, requesting the trial judge to accept the jury verdict and to make it the judgment of the court.

On October 5, 2009, the trial judge rendered the “judgment” as follows:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the verdict of the jury rendered on October 1, 2009, as set forth in the jury verdict form entered into the record of this proceeding, BE AND IS HEREBY MADE the Judgment of the Court.
The clerk mailed notice of the “judgment” on October 6, 2009.

On October 5, 2009, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to set a hearing for determination of attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs asserted that they were entitled to these amounts in accordance with the jury verdict as to fraud and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. And, the plaintiffs represented that all |inparties agreed to reserve to the trial court the determination of attorneys’ fees in the event they were owed based on the jury verdict.

The plaintiffs asked for a hearing in order to submit documentary evidence of the amounts incurred. The plaintiffs also sought that costs be taxed against the defendants. The trial judge set a hearing on November 18, 2009 on the attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Second “Judgment"

On October 14, 2009, the trial judge signed a second “judgment” that was submitted by the plaintiffs:

This matter having been tried before a jury on September 21 through October 1, 2009, when the jury returned and rendered its verdict in favor of Plaintiffs for fraud, breach of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and breach of contract, in the amount of $21,733,411, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered herein in favor of Plaintiffs, Input/Output, Inc. and ION Marine Systems, Inc. and against Defendants, Wilson Greatbatch Technologies, Inc. and Wilson Great-batch, Ltd., d/b/a Electrochem Lithium Batteries in the principal amount of twenty-one million seven hundred thirty-three thousand, four hundred eleven dollars ($21,733,411), plus legal interest from the date of judicial demand, and for attorneys fees. It is further ordered that Defendants are to bear all costs of this matter.

The clerk mailed the second “judgment” on October 15, 2009.

Our review of the record indicates that there was no motion filed in the record seeking to have the first “judgment” amended. Furthermore, the second “judgment” did not vacate the first “judgment.”

Post-Trial Motions/Appeals

In While the parties filed post-trial motions, given our opinion discussed below that there is no valid judgment in this case, the motions are of no moment. The motions, the November 18, 2009 hearing, and post-trial rulings, however, point out that the parties and the trial judge proceeded under a mistake of law; namely that the October 5, 2009 “judgment” was valid.

In light of that error, the plaintiffs filed a motion to “reform” the first “judgment” asserting that the second “judgment” was null because the court had already entered the first “judgment” and substantive changes could only be made through a motion for new trial or an appeal. The plaintiffs asked the court to consider an unfiled letter to the judge as a pending motion for new trial of the first “judgment.” Furthermore, the plaintiffs submitted yet a third proposed “judgment.” The plaintiffs also filed a motion for attorneys’ fees under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act as well as for costs.

The defendants challenged both “judgments” through post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively for a remittitur or a new trial. They agreed that the second “judgment” was a nullity because it impermissibly made substantive changes to the first “judgment.”

On November 30, 2009, the trial judge rendered a judgment denying the plaintiffs’ motion for new trial to reform the judgment. The trial judge declared the second “judgment” to be a nullity. She denied the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs as moot. She denied the defendants’ post-trial motions as to the first “judgment.” She denied defendants’ post-trial motions as to the second “judgment” as moot. At the hearing, she explained that she thought the only proper ruling in the case was to deny the plaintiffs’ motion because the only remedy to correct an error of substance was a timely motion for new trial or a [ ^timely appeal. Accordingly, having evidently found that there was no proper motion for new trial filed, she denied the motion to reform the first “judgment.”

The clerk mailed the judgment to the parties on December 1, 2009.

On December 1, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for devolutive appeal seeking to appeal from the October 5, 2009 “judgment” and the judgment of November 30, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the defendants filed a motion for suspensive appeal from the “final judgment” of October 5, 2009.

Analysis

After a trial by jury, La.C.C.P. art. 1916(A) requires a “judgment” as follows:

After a trial by jury, the court shall prepare and sign a judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury within ten days of the rendition of the verdict, or the court may order counsel for a party in the case to prepare and submit a judgment to the court for signature within ten days of the rendition of the verdict, in accordance with the rules for Louisiana district courts.

“A judgment is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action and may award any relief to which the parties are entitled.” La.C.C.P. art. 1841. This court cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment. Creighton, Richards & Higdon, L.L.C. v. Richards Clearview, L.L.C., 09-247, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/09), 28 So.3d 391, 393 (citations omitted). “A final judgment shall be identified as such by appropriate language.” La.C.C.P. art. 1918.

A valid judgment must be precise, definite and certain. Blanke v. Duffy, 05-829, p. 2 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/28/06), 927 So.2d 540, 541 (citation omitted). See also: Scott v. State, 525 So.2d 689 (La.App. 1 Cir.1988), writ denied, 558 So.2d 1128 (La.1990) (citations omitted); Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 05-0337, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/06), 934 So.2d 66, 67 (citations omitted). The decree alone indicates the decision. Falterman v. Prestenbach, 6 La.App. 563, 1927 WL 3549, *1 (La.App. 1 Cir.1927). The result decreed must be spelled out in lucid, unmistakable language. South St. Lumber Co. v. Dickerson, 235 La. 1062, 106 So.2d 513, 515 (La.1958). The quality of definiteness is essential to a proper judgment. Russo v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 129 La. 554, 56 So. 506, 508 (La.1911).

A final appealable judgment must contain decretal language, and it 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. Johnson, supra, 0337 at 3, 934 So.2d at 67. Accord: Blanke, supra. The specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings or reasons for judgment. Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 01-0809, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 906, 913. Additionally, the failure to name any defendant against whom the judgment was rendered in a case with multiple defendants makes the judgment fatally defective, because one cannot discern from its face against whom the judgment may be enforced. BorgWarner Acceptance Corp. Through BorgWarner Leasing v. Whitlow Truck Center, Inc., 508 So.2d 857, 859 (La.App. 5 Cir.1987).

The first “judgment” does not contain decretal language, 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. The specific nature and amount of damages 114are not determinable from the alleged “judgment” without reference to an extrinsic source.

We hold that the “judgment” in the present case is fatally defective and for that reason, there is no judgment in the case.

In briefs before this Court the plaintiffs raise the same argument raised below concerning the motion to reform the first “judgment.” In addition, they ask this Court to dismiss the appeals from the first “judgment” and to recognize the second “judgment” as valid, subject to remand for the computation of costs, fees and interest. On the other hand, the defendants, in brief to this Court, ask that we reject the plaintiffs’ request to view the second “judgment” as valid. Alternatively, should the second “judgment” be “resurrected,” the defendants request a remand in order to perfect an appeal. Finally, the defendants request in the alternative that this Court decide the merits issues raised by both sides, and render a judgment that is just and proper on the record.

In the similar case of Fournet v. Smith, 06-1075 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/4/07), 2007 WL 1300943 (unpublished) the First Circuit dismissed the appeal and the answer to the appeal because the record did not contain a valid, final judgment and the court lacked appellate jurisdiction. Instead, the jury answered interrogatories making factual findings and assessment of damages. The trial judge incorporated the jury verdict into its judgment and ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the verdict be made the judgment of the court. The First Circuit concluded that the judgment was invalid because it did not identify the defendants who were cast in judgment nor did it order any of the defendants to make a payment of money to the plaintiff. The court also concluded that denial of a motion for new trial was a non-appealable interlocutory judgment. Although the court may consider such |, ¡judgments as part of an unrestricted appeal from a final judgment, the judgment in that case lacked finality. 2007 WL 1300943, *1-3.

The Foumet court also pointed out that only judgments are made executory in Louisiana courts. See: La.C.C.P. art. 2781 et. seq. 2007 WL 1300943, *2, n. 2.

In the instant case, the plaintiffs appealed the alleged October 5, 2009 “judgment” and the trial judge’s November 30, 2009 post-trial rulings denying its motion to reform the October 5, 2009 alleged “judgment” and the trial judge’s recognizing the October 14, 2009 judgment to be a nullity. That recognition was based on the parties’ and the trial judge’s erroneous belief that the October 5, 2009 alleged “judgment” was valid and no substantive change could be made absent a timely motion for new trial or appeal. In recognizing the nullity, the trial judge was recognizing the validity of the first “judgment.”

As in Foumet, the October 5, 2009 “judgment” is not a final valid judgment. Also, the post-trial rulings denying the motion to reform the alleged judgment on the basis it was a nullity are interlocutory and are not part of an unrestricted appeal from a valid final judgment. As in Four-net, we decline to consider the interlocutory rulings. Moreover, the parties filed post-trial proceedings based on an invalid judgment. Because those proceedings are based on an error of law, we find them without legal effect. Compare: Wadsworth v. Alexius, 234 La. 187, 99 So.2d 77, 80 (1958) (All proceedings conducted under the authority of an invalid judgment were void.).

Therefore, we dismiss all appeals presently before this court.

11fiConclusion

Since this court lacks jurisdiction in the absence of a final appealable judgment, these appeals are dismissed. Once a valid final judgment has been signed, new appeals may be filed. We hereby reserve to any party the right to request that this case be placed on the first available docket once the record of the new appeal is lodged and briefs are filed.

APPEALS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; REMANDED.

      . Among its claims, the plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conversion. In addition, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief but never set a hearing for that remedy. At trial, plaintiffs' counsel struck the claim for injunctive relief. Prior to trial, counsel waived the claims of conversion and unjust enrichment to the extent that the waiver did not prejudice any of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims (see August 26, 2009 motion for summary judgment hearing and September 21, 2009 judgment, the plaintiffs’ September 30, 2009 proposed jury interrogatories and revised proposed special jury instructions). After the plaintiffs rested their case, the defendants moved, among other things, to dismiss the fiduciaiy duty claim. The plaintiffs' counsel objected. The trial judge deferred ruling pending mem-oranda. There was no express ruling in the record on the motion to dismiss the fiduciary duty claim. However, later, during the jury charge conference, the plaintiffs' counsel stated that he inadvertently placed a breach of fiduciary duty in the jury interrogatories. He said he drew a line through it and said that the trial judge had dismissed that claim. The trial court said: "Okay.” Thus, the trial judge dismissed the fiduciary duty claim.

      .According to the plaintiffs’ statement in their brief, in 1998 DigiCourse, Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Laitram Corp. in Harahan, Louisiana. In 1998, DigiCourse was acquired by Input/Output, Inc. In 2007, Input/Output changed its name to ION Geophysical Corporation. DigiCourse is now known as ION. Also, according to the plaintiffs, Wilson Greatbatch, Inc.'is the successor to Wilson Greatbatch Ltd., which did business as Electrochem Lithium Batteries. The parent Greatbatch, Inc. and related and subsidiary companies, including defendants Elec-trochem Solutions Inc., Wilson Greatbatch Technologies Incorporated and WGL Intermediate Holdings Incorporated are located in Clarence, New York.

      . See: the latest pretrial order filed on August 25, 2009, which purports to be jointly filed but only contains the signature of the plaintiffs.

      . See: the amended joint pretrial order on February 23, 2009 signed by the parties.

      . See the following: the defendants’ amended pretrial order inserts; the defendants’ opposition to the plaintiffs’ special jury instructions filed on September 21, 2009; the defendants' October 1, 2009 proposed jury interrogatories.

      . See the following: the January 31, 2007 pretrial order; the caption on the jury interrogatories given to the jury at trial; the defendants’ September 21, 2009 proposed special jury instructions.

      . La.C.C.P. art. 1916(A) provides (emphasis added):
      After a trial by jury, the court shall prepare and sign a judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury within ten days of the rendition of the verdict, or the court may order counsel for a party in the case to prepare and submit a judgment to the court for signature within ten days of the rendition of the verdict, in accordance with the rules for Louisiana district courts.
      Rules for Civil Proceedings in District Courts, Rule 9.5 requires the attorney to circulate the proposed judgment to counsel for all parties and allow at least three working days for comment before presentation to the court. Also, "[wjhen submitted, the proposed judgment, order, or ruling shall be accompanied by a certificate regarding the date of mailing, hand delivery, or other method of delivery of the document to other counsel of record and to unrepresented parties, stating whether any opposition was received.”

      . Before opening arguments, the plaintiffs' counsel pointed out that the plaintiffs had a claim for attorneys' fees. He suggested that it would be appropriate to first determine whether the jury would grant an award for "that cause of action.” And, if so they would submit attorneys’ fees to the trial court after the trial. The trial judge agreed to determine the issue of attorneys' fees after a favorable verdict.

      . See: Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, p. 5 (La.5/20/03), 846 So.2d 692, 695 ("The proper recourse for an error of substance within a judgment is a timely application for new trial or a timely appeal.''). "Courts have uniformly held substantive amendments to judgments made without recourse to the proper procedures, i.e. by way of a timely motion for a new trial or by appeal, to be absolute nullities.” Id.

      . In Blanks v. Duffy, 05-829, p. 2 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/28/06), 927 So.2d 540, 541, the record contained only the reasons for judgment, and not the judgment itself. Thus, there was no proper judgment. In addition, the alleged judgment — an alleged partial judgment— would not be final for purposes of immediate appeal. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and remanded for further proceedings. 05-829 at 3-4, 927 So.2d at 541-42.

      . When an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, the appellant is entitled to a review of all adverse interlocutory rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to the review of the correctness of the final judgment from which the party has taken the appeal. Sporl v. Sporl, 00-1321 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/01), 788 So.2d 682, 683-84, writ denied, 01-1926 (La.10/12/01), 799 So.2d 506 (Citation omitted).

      . In Whitlow Truck Center, this court did not dismiss the appeal. Rather, it amended the judgment to include the name of the defendant cast in judgment. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. Through Borg-Warner Leasing v. Whitlow Truck Center, Inc., 508 So.2d 857, 859 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1987). That case is distinguishable. In Whitlow Truck Center, the judgment was not otherwise fatally defective as in the instant case.


author: PAINTER, Judge.

text:
    Brian DOYAL v. VERNON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 10-427.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2010.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 2011.

      Stacey Auzenne, Attorney at Law, Alexandria, LA, for Defendant-Appellant, Vernon Parish School Board.
    Maria Losavio, Attorney at Law, Alexandria, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Brian Doyal.
    Court composed of OSWALD A. DECUIR, J. DAVID PAINTER, and SHANNON J. GREMILLION, Judges.
   PAINTER, Judge.

11 Defendant, Vernon Parish School Board, appeals the denial of its motion to modify judgment in this workers’ compensation case. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter arises out of a work-related injury suffered by Brian Doyal on October 9, 2003, when a sheet pan rack toppled against him and knocked him to the ground. We have previously considered an appeal in this matter and determined that there was no error in the workers’ compensation judge’s award of continuing medical treatment of the low back condition and the carpal tunnel surgery recommended by his physicians. Doyal v. Vernon Parish Sch. Bd., 06-1088 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 950 So.2d 902, writ denied, 07-832 (La.06/15/07), 958 So.2d 1190.

We previously noted:

This matter was instituted on August 5, 2004[,j when the School Board filed a “Disputed Claim for Compensation” and, in its pre-trial statement, asserted that Mr. Doyal fraudulently accepted compensation benefits while earning in excess of ninety percent of his pre-accident wage, provided false statements regarding the occurrence of the accident, and failed to disclose pre-existing back injuries in his employment questionnaire and in the history provided to physicians who treated him after the accident. The School Board sought reimbursement of all indemnity, medical, and mileage benefits. Mr. Doyal filed his own claim and asserted entitlement to TTD benefits as well as penalties and attorney’s fees due to the termination of benefits.
The workers’ compensation judge denied the School Board’s forfeiture claims, reinstated TTD benefits from the date they were last paid, and found Mr. Doyal entitled to continued medical care, including the recommended back surgery and carpal tunnel release. The trial court awarded $8,000.00 in penalties and $25,000.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to La.R.S. 23:1201(1).

Id. at 904-05.

We affirmed the workers’ compensation judge’s ruling in its entirety. Then, in August of 2009, Defendant filed a motion to modify the judgment, alleging that Mr. Doyal’s treating physician changed his opinion regarding the necessity of a low back surgery and that two orthopedic surgeons had concluded that Mr. Doyal had carpal tunnel syndrome but that it was unrelated to his work injury. Prior to the ^hearing on this motion, Mr. Doyal’s treating physician again changed his opinion regarding the necessity of the back surgery. Accordingly, the School Board approved payment for the back surgery, and the only issue at trial was the carpal tunnel surgery.

The workers’ compensation judge denied the School Board’s motion and stated that he was not inclined to reverse his previous finding of a causal connection between the work-related accident and Mr. Doyal’s carpal tunnel syndrome. The School Board now appeals this ruling. The School Board contends that the workers’ compensation judge committed legal error in denying its motion because: (1) the School Board is entitled to a modification of the judgment due to a change in Mr. Doyal’s medical circumstances; i.e., two doctors have now concluded that the carpal tunnel syndrome was unrelated to the work-related accident, and (2) the medical evidence is clear and uncontradict-ed that the carpal tunnel syndrome is unrelated to the accident at issue. Plaintiff answered the appeal, seeking an award of additional attorney’s fees for work done on appeal. Defendant filed a motion to strike said answer, and the resolution of that motion was referred to this panel on the merits. In his brief to this court, Plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred in denying expert witness fees, court reporter fees, and costs. However, Plaintiffs answer to appeal sought only additional attorney’s fees for work done on appeal. Thus, we do not consider Plaintiffs claims for expert witness fees, court reporter fees, and costs. For the following reasons, we deny Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs answer to appeal, and we affirm the ruling of the workers’ compensation judge denying the motion to modify judgment.

DISCUSSION

A party may re-open a workers’ compensation case, and the workers’ compensation judge may modify an award on the grounds of a change in condition. La. R.S. 23:1310.8(B). “A party who seeks a modification of a worker’s compensation judgment must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the worker’s disability has increased or diminished.” Lormand v. Rossclaire Constr., 01-515, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/12/01), 801 So.2d 675, 676. The factual findings of the ^workers’ compensation judge are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Id.

Defendant’s based their motion to modify judgment, in part, on the deposition of Dr. Robert L. Morrow, Jr., in which Dr. Morrow stated that he did not think that he could say with any degree of medical certainty that Plaintiffs carpal tunnel syndrome was related to the October 9, 2003 accident. However, we note that Dr. Morrow did not see Plaintiff until some five years after the accident. Defendant contends that a change in medical opinion as to the causation of carpal tunnel syndrome has been made by Plaintiffs treating physicians and that this evidence did not exist at the time of the original trial. We do not agree. All of the doctors agree that Plaintiff has some degree of carpal tunnel syndrome. There is conflicting testimony as to the cause. We note, however, that Plaintiff complained of pain to his left wrist immediately after the subject accident and that this court has already affirmed a finding that the carpal tunnel syndrome was related to this accident.

We agree with the workers’ compensation judge, and this court has repeatedly recognized that “causation is not necessarily a medical conclusion, and the ultimate determination as to whether a plaintiff has proved the causation of his disability is made by the courts and not by medical experts.” Bush v. Avoylles Progress Action Comm., 07-685, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/31/07), 970 So.2d 63, 68. We cannot say the workers’ compensation judge was clearly wrong in concluding that Defendant has not proven a change in circumstances. We, therefore, affirm the denial of the motion to modify judgment.

We now consider Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs answer to the appeal. This court recognized that:

The basis for awarding additional attorney’s fees for services rendered on appeal is that in order to protect her rights on appeal, the litigant successful at the trial level must incur additional expenses which otherwise would not have been incurred. Kleas v. Mayfield, 404 So.2d 500 (La.App. 3 Cir.1981). Normally, when a plaintiff seeks relief that was denied at the trial level, and such relief is again denied on appeal, an increase in attorney’s fees for services rendered on appeal is unwarranted. However, “an appellee who answers the appeal seeking relief denied him in the trial court but who also successfully defends the |4trial court judgment should not be deprived of additional attorney’s fees on appeal when the relief sought in his answer is denied.” Bischoff v. Old Southern Life Insurance Co., 502 So.2d 181, 186 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987) (Knoll, J. concurring); See also Bischoff, Id. (Guidry, J. concurring); Latiolais v. Home Insurance Co., 454 So.2d 902 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 460 So.2d 610 (1984).

Stacks v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 95-693, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/95), 664 So.2d 566, 569.

Defendant recognizes that Plaintiff made an oral motion for costs, penalties, and attorney’s fees at the trial of its motion to modify judgment but asserts that Plaintiff did not seek any relief at the trial court level and is not entitled to any award of attorney’s fees for any response to this appeal. We disagree with Defendant and award an additional $3,000.00 in attorney’s fees for work done on appeal.

DECREE

For all of the foregoing reasons, the ruling the workers’ compensation judge denying Defendant’s motion to modify judgment is affirmed. Furthermore, we deny Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs answer to appeal and award an additional $3,000.00 in attorney’s fees for work done on appeal. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Defendant, Vernon Parish School Board.

AFFIRMED.