Tifiny Grantham v. Louisiana Workforce Commission

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 22-773

TIFINY GRANTHAM VERSUS LOUISIANA WORKFORCE COMMISSION

********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 272,828 HONORABLE PATRICIA EVANS KOCH, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** D. KENT SAVOIE JUDGE **********

Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Gary J. Ortego, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

J. Jerome Burden Deptartment of Labor Post Office Box 94094 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9094 (225) 342-3044 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Louisiana Workforce Commission Tifiny Ann Grantham In Proper Person Cook Road Forest Hill, LA 71430 (318) 587-2138 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Tifiny Grantham SAVOIE, Judge.

On December 1, 2022, this court ordered pro se Plaintiff-Appellant, Tifiny Ann Grantham, to show cause, by brief only, why the instant appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Appellant responded by brief to the rule. For the reasons set forth herein, we dismiss the appeal.

On February 8, 2022, Appellant filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the lower court, seeking review of the decision of the Workforce Commission, State of Louisiana (Board of Review), which disqualified Appellant from receiving Pandemic Unemployment Assistance. On July 18, 2022, the trial court affirmed the Board of Review’s decision. Notice of judgment was mailed to the parties on July 21, 2022.

Appellant filed the instant devolutive appeal on October 11, 2022, prompting this court to issue a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2087.

In Appellant’s response, she explains the difficulties she experienced in finding an attorney to represent her on appeal. When she could not secure an attorney to file her appeal, she began searching online to see what she needed to do. Appellant thought she had found and submitted the correct forms on September 26, 2022.

However, on or about October 6, 2022, Appellant received a letter from the Rapides Parish Clerk of Court’s office, advising that the file had been returned because there was no order for the judge to sign. That same day, Appellant contacted Attorney Wendy Maynard who arranged with her paralegal to get an order to Appellant. On October 11, 2022, Appellant had a friend bring the correct form to be signed by the judge.

Pursuant to Article 2087, “an appeal which does not suspend the effect or the execution of an appealable order or judgment may be taken within sixty days of . . . the expiration of the delay for applying for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Appellant confirms that the notice of appeal was not filed until October 11, 2022, more than sixty days from the expiration of the delay for filing a motion for new trial. Accordingly, we find that the appeal was filed untimely and is hereby dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.

Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.