NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2023 CA 1203

SRG BATON ROUGE II, L.L.C.

VERSUS

PATTEN/JENKINS BR POPEYE'S, L.L.C.

Judgment Rendered: MAY 3 1 2024

Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. C679391

The Honorable Trudy M. White, Judge Presiding

Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Mary Katherine Price SRG Baton Rouge II, L.L.C. Alexandria, Louisiana

Antonio M. "Tony" Clayton Port Allen, Louisiana

Geoffrey D. Westmoreland Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Anna W. O'Neal Patten/Jenkins BR Popeye's, L.L.C. Caroline D. Alford Shreveport, Louisiana

Timothy W. Hardy Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Druitt G. Gremillion, Jr. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.

LANIER,J.

In this declaratory action seeking performance, reformation, and damages

relative to the enforceability of a commercial lease and the option to purchase

provision contained therein, defendant, Patten/Jenkins BR Popeye's, L.L.C.

Patten/ Jenkins"), appeals the trial court's summary judgment rendered in favor of

plaintiff, SRG Baton Rouge II, L.L.C. (" SRG"). SRG answered the appeal.

Although the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of SRG, ordering

Patten/Jenkins to take the necessary steps to perfect the sale of the property to

SRG, the judgment did not dispose of all the claims presented to the court. In a

companion appeal also decided this date, Patten/ Jenkins challenges the trial court's

judgment on damages, as well as several other interlocutory rulings. See SRG

Baton Rouge II, L.L.C. v. Patten/Jenkins BR Popeye' s, L.L.C., 2023 CA 1204

La. App. 1 Cir. --/--/--), --- So.3d ---(" SRG II").

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915( B)(l) authorizes the appeal

of a partial summary judgment as to " one or more but less than all of the claims,

demands, issues, or theories" presented where the judgment is designated as a final

judgment by the trial court after a determination that there is no just reason for

delay. Absent a designation of a judgment as final under Article 1915( B)(l), a

partial summary judgment may be revised at any time prior to the rendition of the

judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B)(2); Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v.

Energy Development Corporation, 2016-0171 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/12/ 17), 218 So.3d 1045, 1054. Because the trial court did not designate the judgment as final

under Article 1915(B)(l), this partial judgment cannot constitute a final judgment

for purposes of an appeal. Thus, we dismiss this appeal, noting that we will

consider the arguments raised regarding the summary judgment in connection with

our review in SRG II.

Shortly after Patten/Jenkins filed its appeal in this matter and in SRG II,

SRG moved to consolidate the two appeals, arguing the " the two appeals should proceed in one streamlined proceeding. SRG added it had " no objection to

Patten/Jenkins raising its grievances with the summary judgment ruling on appeal along with the final judgment awarding SRG damages. Patten/Jenkins agreed

with consolidation of the appeals for purposes of consideration by the same panel,

but opposed consolidation for the purposes of briefing. This court granted the

motion to consolidate, ordering that SRG II be consolidated with this appeal for

argument and submission. When an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final

judgment, the appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse interlocutory

rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to review of the final judgment appealed.

Young v. City of Plaquemine, 2004-2305 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/4/05), 927 So.2d 408, 411. Thus, the issue ofwhether summary judgment was appropriately granted

in this case will be fully addressed in SRG II.

APPEAL AND ANSWER TO APPEAL DISMISSED.