PAUL SYLVESTER JR v. SLJC HOLDINGS LLC (2026)

Relator, SLJC Holdings, LLC, seeks review of the trial court's May 22, 2026 oral ruling issuing a judgment of possession in favor of Respondent, Paul Sylvester, Jr. After consideration of the application for supervisory writ before this Court and the applicable law, we grant the writ however, because a judgment of possession is a final appealable judgment, we decline to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction and dismiss the application for supervisory writ.

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

On November 3, 2024, SLJC Holdings entered into a commercial lease agreement with Mr. Sylvester for the lease of commercial property located at 1931 and 1933 St. Claude Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana. The lease agreement provides for a fixed term of seventy-five (75) years. As a result of non-payment of rent, Mr. Sylvester sent SLJC Holdings a notice of default on September 4, 2025 and commenced eviction proceedings in October 2025. After several failed attempts to gain possession of the property, on March 10, 2026, Mr. Sylvester issued a five-day notice to vacate to SLJC Holdings. On March 18, 2026, as SLJC Holdings failed to vacate the property, Mr. Sylvester filed a “Petition for Possession of Premises” in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. On March 18, 2026, SLJC Holdings filed a petition for damages, declaratory judgment, preliminary and permanent injunction seeking to maintain possession of the property while the parties litigated the matter, which was assigned to a different division of court prior to consolidation. On May 14, 2026, in the Division N matter, SLJC Holdings filed a preliminary injunction, seeking to prohibit Mr. Sylvester from enforcing eviction of the property during the pendency of the ordinary proceedings instituted by SLJC Holdings. After a continuance, Mr. Sylvester's petition for possession was set to be heard by the trial court on May 22, 2026. On May 20, 2026, two-days prior to the hearing date, SLJC Holdings filed exceptions of lis pendes and unauthorized use of summary proceedings. On May 21, 2026, SLJC Holdings also filed a motion to strike the affidavit of Mr. Sylvester.

On May 22, 2026, the trial court considered the matter and orally granted a judgment of possession in Mr. Sylvester's favor. According to SLJC Holdings, the trial court also denied the preliminary injunction and did not consider its exceptions. There is no written judgment of the trial court's May 22, 2026 oral ruling and no transcript of the hearing. On May 22, 2026, SLJC Holdings filed a notice of intent to apply for emergency supervisory, a motion for devolutive appeal with a request for a stay, of the trial court's May 22, 2026 oral ruling. Neither has been signed by the trial court.

On May 26, 2026, SLJC Holdings filed its expedited application for supervisory review with this Court seeking a stay of the trial court's May 22, 2026 oral ruling. On the same date, this Court granted a temporary stay of the trial court's May 22, 2026 oral ruling and ordered Mr. Sylvester to file an opposition regarding SLJC Holdings’ request for a stay. On May 27, 2026, this Court lifted the temporary stay order; denied SLJC Holdings’ request for a stay; and denied SLJC Holding's request for expedited consideration.¹

Discussion

SLJC Holdings request that this Court exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to review the trial court's May 22, 2026 oral ruling issuing a judgment of possession in favor of Mr. Sylvester. However, we find that a judgment of eviction is a final, appealable judgment not subject to this Court's supervisory jurisdiction. “A judgment that determines the merits in whole or in part is a final judgment.” La. C.C.P. art. 1841. “A final judgment is appealable in all causes in which appeals are given by law․ .” La. C.C.P. art. 2083(A). The trial court's May 22, 2026 oral ruling issuing the judgment of possession determined the merits of Mr. Sylvester's petition for possession. Thus, the proper procedural mechanism to seek review of the trial court's May 22, 2026 ruling is through an appeal.

We note that the application for supervisory review does not contain a signed written judgment or signed notice of intent. See Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 4. Further, the appeal of the May 22, 2026 ruling is premature and cannot be taken until the judgment has been signed by the trial court. La. C.C.P. art. 1911. While SLJC Holdings has filed a motion for devolutive appeal (requesting a stay), which has not been signed, there is no signed written judgment of the trial court's May 22, 2026 oral ruling.² As to SLJC Holdings’ assertion that the trial court erred in failing to consider the exceptions of lis pendes and unauthorized use of summary proceedings, once a proper final judgment is obtained from the trial court, SLJC Holdings may seek review of all interlocutory rulings as part of an unrestricted appeal. See Maqubool v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 2018-0572, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/14/18), 259 So.3d 630, 633 (citation omitted) (“An appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse interlocutory judgments prejudicial to them, in addition to the review of the final judgment when an unrestricted appeal is taken.”). Accordingly, we grant the writ however, because a judgment of possession is a final appealable judgment, we decline to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction and dismiss the application for supervisory writ.

WRIT GRANTED; APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT DISMISSED

FOOTNOTES

1.   The application for supervisory writ was filed as an emergency. The emergency writ panel ordered the case assigned to a non-emergency writ panel on May 27, 2026.

2.   La. C.C.P. art. 4735 provides:An appeal does not suspend execution of a judgment of eviction unless the defendant has answered the rule under oath, pleading an affirmative defense entitling him to retain possession of the premises, and the appeal has been applied for and the appeal bond filed within twenty-four hours after the rendition of the judgment of eviction. The amount of the suspensive appeal bond shall be determined by the court in an amount sufficient to protect the appellee against all such damage as he may sustain as a result of the appeal.

Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase