Immaculate Heart of Mary Pcs, LLC v. Cornelius Darby

── Immaculate Heart of Mary Pcs, LLC v. Cornelius Darby ── Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 26-200 IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY PCS, LLC VERSUS CORNELIUS DARBY, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 25-C-01927 HONORABLE GREGORY JAMES DOUCET, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE ********** Court composed of, Shannon J. Gremillion, Candace G. Perret, and Sharon Darville Wilson, Judges. APPEAL DISMISSED. Raven Matthews Miller 406 Pere Megret Street Abbeville, LA 70510 (337) 251-3036 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Cornelius Darby Acts of Care, LLC Travis J. Broussard P.O. Box 82238 Lafayette, LA 70598 (337) 534-4242 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Immaculate Heart of Mary PCS, LLC Gremillion, Judge. This mater originated when Petitioner, Immaculate Heart of Mary PCS, LLC, sought injunctive relief against their former employee, Cornelius Darby, and his new employer, Acts of Care, LLC. The trial court below granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Immaculate Heart and against defendants on November 26, 2025. From that decision, Defendants sought the current appeal. On April 10, 2026, this court issued, sua sponte, a rule ordering the defendants to show cause by April 27, 2026, by brief only, why the appeal in the above captioned case should not be dismissed as untimely, citing La.Code Civ.P. art. 3612 and Broussard v. Ave Maria Rosary & Cenacle, Inc., 21-508 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/22), 340 So.3d 1204. Appellant argues that the judgment rendered by the trial court distinguishes this case and places it beyond the strictures of La.Code Civ.P. art. 3612. We disagree. For the reasons given herein, we dismiss the appeal. The judgment below was entered pursuant to plaintiff’s petition for a preliminary injunction and defendants’ motions to quash subpoenas and to dissolve a temporary restraining order. The trial court’s judgment enjoined Darby from maintaining employment in “a personal care services business” in eighteen parishes for a period of two years from September 15, 2025. The same judgment enjoined Darby from soliciting plaintiff’s clients in those same parishes for the same period. Acts of Care, LLC, was enjoined from employing Darby in those parishes for the relevant time frame. Lastly, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to quash the subpoenas issued to Darby and Acts of Care. Appellate courts do not acquire jurisdiction over an appeal that is not timely perfected. Louka v. “Bd. of Supervisors for Univ. of La. Sy”s., 23-76 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/21/23), 376 So.3d 864, writ denied, 23-1410 (La. 1/10/24), 376 So.3d 131. An appellant’s failure to file a devolutive appeal timely is a jurisdictional defect, in that neither the court of appeal nor any other court has the jurisdictional power and authority to reverse, revise, or modify a final judgment after the time for filing a devolutive appeal has elapsed. Id. See also La. C.C.P. art. 2087. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3612 states, in pertinent part (emphasis ours): A. There shall be no appeal from an order relating to a temporary restraining order. .... C. An appeal from an order or judgment relating to a preliminary injunction must be taken, and any bond required must be furnished, within fifteen days from the date of the order or judgment. The court in its discretion may stay further proceedings until the appeal has been decided. The judgment appealed