SWITZER v. SIMS (2026)

In this appeal, plaintiff seeks reversal of the trial court's judgment, which granted defendant's La. C.C.P. art. 971 special motion to strike and reserved defendant's right to seek recovery of attorney fees and costs pursuant to Article 971(B). After review, we find the judgment on appeal is not final and immediately appealable. Thus, we dismiss the appeal and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Gretchen Holliday Switzer, on behalf of her minor son, filed a petition for defamation and damages against Collin Sims in April 2024. Pertinently, Switzer alleged that Sims defamed her son and falsely accused him of committing a crime during Sims’ campaign to become the District Attorney of the 22nd Judicial District Court.³

In response, Sims filed a special motion to strike pursuant to La. C.C.P art. 971, urging the trial court to dismiss Switzer's suit with prejudice and to award reasonable attorney fees and costs in accordance with Article 971(B).⁴

The trial court granted Sims’ motion to strike in a judgment signed on November 25, 2024, and dismissed Switzer's suit. The judgment further ordered that Sims’ right to seek recovery of attorney fees and costs pursuant to Article 971(B) was “expressly reserved.” The judgment was not designated as final pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)(1) (effective August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2025).⁵ This timely appeal by Switzer followed.

JURISDICTION

Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction, which extends only to final judgments, even if the parties do not raise the issue. Cope v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and A&M College, 2025-0036 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/31/25), 418 So.3d 994, 1000. See La. C.C.P. arts. 1841 and 2083.

In Jones v. Citizens for a New Louisiana, 2024-00945 (La. 12/27/24), 397 So.3d 842, 846 (per curiam), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a judgment that grants a special motion to strike but reserves judgment on the mover's request for attorney fees and costs is not a final judgment that may be immediately appealed pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A).⁶ The supreme court concluded that the 2021 amendment to La. C.C.P. art. 2088(A)(10), which provides that the trial court retains jurisdiction to set attorney fees while an appeal is pending, did not apply to a judgment that granted a special motion to strike but did not award statutory attorney fees. Jones, 397 So.3d at 845; see La. C.C.P. art. 971(B). Instead, it is a partial judgment governed by La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B) and is not a final judgment for purposes of an immediate appeal “unless it is designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.”⁷ Jones, 397 So.3d at 846, quoting La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)(1).

The Louisiana Supreme Court noted the trial court did not designate the judgment as immediately appealable pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)(1). Jones, 397 So.3d at 846. Thus, the judgment remained in an interlocutory posture until the trial court signed a final judgment awarding statutory attorney fees and costs, thereby adjudicating all claims. Jones, 397 So.3d at 846; see La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)(2).

Here, the November 25, 2024 judgment granted Sims’ special motion to strike, reserved his right to seek statutory attorney fees and costs, and was not designated as final pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)(1). In accordance with Jones, 397 So.3d 842, we conclude the November 25, 2024 judgment is not final and immediately appealable.⁸

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal. The appeal is dismissed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. All costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiff/appellant, Gretchen Holliday Switzer.

APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

3.   Sims served as interim District Attorney of the 22nd Judicial District Court beginning on/about November 17, 2023 and was elected as the District Attorney in March 2024.

4.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 971 states, in relevant part:A.(1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of success on the claim.***B. In any action subject to Paragraph A of this Article, a prevailing party on a special motion to strike shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.

5.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915 was amended and reenacted by La. Acts 2025, No. 250 § 3, effective August 1, 2025. La. Acts 2025, No. 250, § 6, states, in pertinent part, “[t]he provisions of Article 1915 as amended by Section 3 of this Act shall have prospective application only and shall not apply to appeals and supervisory writs filed prior to the effective date of this Act.” Switzer moved for and was granted an appeal prior to the amendment's effective date; thus, the amendments to Article 1915 do not apply to this appeal and all references to La. C.C.P. art. 1915 in this opinion refer to the version of the article in effect from August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2025.

6.   The first judgment rendered in Jones in October 2022 granted defendants’ special motions to strike and dismissed with full prejudice the claims of plaintiff against defendants. However, the judgment did not make a mandatory award of attorney fees as required by La. C.C.P. art. 971(B) but instead reserved that determination for a later hearing. Jones, 397 So.3d at 845.

7.   The supreme court explained that, had the trial court made such a determination, plaintiff would have been entitled to take an immediate appeal, and the trial court would have retained jurisdiction under La. C.C. P. art. 2088(A)(10) to adjudicate the issue of attorney fees during the pendency of the appeal. Jones, 397 So.3d at 846.

8.   While this court has discretion to convert appeals to applications for supervisory writs, it may only do so if the appeal would have been timely had it been filed as a supervisory writ application. Lea v. Lea, 2021-1293 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/28/22), 342 So.3d 352, 354. Here, the notice of judgment was mailed on December 3, 2024, and Switzer filed a motion for appeal more than thirty days later, on January 17, 2025. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to convert this appeal to a writ application. See Rule 4-3 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.

HAGGERTY, J.