TATUM v. ENTERGY OF NEW ORLEANS (2026)

Vernon J. Tatum, Jr., Appellant, appearing Pro Se, (“Mr. Tatum”) appeals the denial of his Petition against the Defendants-Appellees, Entergy of New Orleans and Entergy of Louisiana, (“Entergy”). For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 3, 2025, Mr. Tatum filed a Petition for Deceptive Billing Practices against Entergy. His Petition included an order praying for judgment in the amount of $449,428, while simultaneously requesting service on two Entergy CEOs, Deanna Rodriguez and Phillip May. On December 29, 2025, the trial court denied the order. On January 27, 2026, Mr. Tatum requested written reasons for judgment. On January 29, 2026, the trial court issued the following Judgment and Reasons:

Petitioner, Vernon J. Tatum, Jr., did not clearly set forth he was only seeking to have Defendants Entergy of New Orleans and Entergy Louisiana served. His order seemed to [be] requesting judgment in the amount of “449.42 1 with legal and/or judicial interest thereon, from date of judicial demand. Plus all court costs and service fees incurred by petitioners.” (sic) based on his petition solely. Therefore, the request is denied by the court.

The trial court issued Notice of Signing of Judgment on the same day. On March 2, 2026, Mr. Tatum filed a Motion for Appeal and Designation of the Record. The instant appeal followed.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Before addressing the merits of any appeal, an appellate court has a duty to determine if it has subject matter jurisdiction. Lassalle v. Napoleon, 23-0705, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/11/24), 390 So.3d 805, 809. “An appellate court cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless its subject matter jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment.” Moulton v. Stewart Enters., Inc., 17-0243, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/3/17), 226 So.3d 569, 571 (citation omitted). A final judgment determines the merits in whole or part. La. C.C.P. art. 1841. See also La. C.C.P. art. 1915.² A final judgment must be precise, and contain proper decretal language. Moulton, pp. 4-5, 226 So.3d at 572. Decretal language must contain the name of the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the name of the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied. Urquhart v. Spencer, 15-1354, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/1/16), 204 So.3d 1074, 1077. The judgment must also “award specific relief determinable from the judgment without reference to any extrinsic source.” Moulton, p. 5, 226 So.3d at 572.

Applying these principles, we find that the trial court's Judgment and Reasons do not satisfy the jurisprudential and statutory requirements for a valid final judgment. A review of the record demonstrates that Mr. Tatum's suit against Entergy was in its preliminary stage; he had only filed his Petition. While the trial court denied his request for service in the Petition, it made no factual findings nor ruled on the merits of his Petition. As a result, the trial court's Judgment and Reasons do not award specific relief to Mr. Tatum, or Entergy. Moreover, the judgment lacks decretal language. Without a valid final judgment, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal.³

Having determined that the trial court's judgment is not an appealable final judgment, we examine whether it is appropriate to convert this appeal to a writ. La. C.C.P. art. 2083(C) provides that a party may appeal an interlocutory judgment only when expressly provided by law. This Court, however, has previously recognized that we have the discretion to convert an appeal of a non-appealable judgment to an application for supervisory writs. Lasalle 23-0705 p. 7, 390 So.3d at 807 citing Stelluto v. Stelluto, 05-0074, p. 7 (La. 6/29/05), 914 So.2d 34, 39. See also In re Succession of Jefferson, 21-0620, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/9/22), 336 So.3d 509, 512. “This Court's discretionary authority is not unlimited.” Forstall v. City of New Orleans, 170414, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/17/18), 238 So.3d 465, 469. Thus, this Court may exercise its discretion to convert an appeal to a writ only when certain conditions are met: (1) the motion for appeal has been filed within the thirty day period for the filing of an application for supervisory writs pursuant to Rule 4-3 of the Uniform Courts of Appeal; and (2) when an immediate decision of the issue on appeal is “necessary to ensure fundamental fairness and judicial efficiency, such as where reversal of the trial court's decision would terminate the litigation.” Lasalle, 23-0705, p. 7, 390 So.3d at 811. (citations omitted). Neither of these conditions are met here.

As the instant appeal lacks a valid final judgment, we lack appellate jurisdiction to address its merits. Further, since the appeal was not filed within thirty days from the date of the trial court's judgment, we decline to exercise our discretion to convert the instant appeal to a writ application. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand for further proceedings.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Mr. Tatum's appeal without prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

1.   There is a discrepancy between the amount of damages in the trial court's Judgment and Reasons and the amount prayed for in Mr. Tatum's Petition.

2.   La. C.C. P. art. 1915 provides:A. A final judgment may be rendered, even though it may not grant the successful party or parties all of the relief prayed for, or may not adjudicate all of the issues in the case, when the court:(1) Dismisses the suit as to fewer than all of the parties, defendants, third-party plaintiffs, third-party defendants, or interveners.(2) Grants a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as provided by Articles 965, 968, and 969.(3) Grants a motion for summary judgment, as provided by Articles 966 through 969, but not including a summary judgment granted pursuant to Article 966(E).(4) Grants a judgment on either the principal or incidental demand, when the two have been tried separately, as provided by Article 1038.(5) Grants a judgment on the issue of liability when that issue has been tried separately by the court, or when, in a jury trial, the issue of liability has been tried before a jury and the issue of damages is to be tried before a different jury.(6) Imposes sanctions or disciplinary action pursuant to Article 191, 863, or 864 or Code of Evidence Article 510(G).B. If an appeal is taken from any judgment rendered in accordance with Paragraph A this Article, the trial court shall retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining issues in the case.C. Except as otherwise provided by law, when a court grants a judgment or summary judgment, or sustains an exception in part, as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories by or against a party, whether in an original demand, reconventional demand, cross-claim, third-party claim, or intervention, that judgment is an interlocutory judgment.D. All judgments rendered in accordance with this Article shall be reduced to writing and signed by the court.

3.   In their brief to this Court, Entergy argues that Mr. Tatum failed to request service upon their designated agents for service of process in his Petition. Due to the jurisdictional issue, we decline to address the merits of their argument.

Judge Monique G. Morial