Full Opinion

Office Of The Clerk Court of Appeal, First Circuit State of Louisiana www.la- feca. org Rodd Naquin Post Office Box 4408 Clerk of Court Baton Rouge, LA 70821- 4408 Notice of Judgment and Disposition 225) 382- 3000 November 06, 2026 Docket Number: 2026 - CA - 0495 Darrell Berry, Pro Se, and Constance Lafayette, Pro Se versus Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Mortgage, Electronic Registration System, ( MERS); LSF10 Mortgage Holdings, LLC, Dean Morris, L. L. C., Candance A Courteau, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC ( SLS), U. S. Bank Trust National Association as Trustee for LSF10 Master Participation Trust, Fay Servicing, LLC, Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Does I Through 100 Inclusive, et al TO: Christopher D. Meyer Eric James Simonson 190 E. Capitol Street, Ste M- Hinshaw & Culbertson Jackson, MS 39201 400 Poydras Street cmeyer@burr.com Suite 3150 New Orleans, LA 70130 esimonson@hinshawlaw.corr John C Morris Laura C. Cannon 1505 North 19th Street 400 Poydras Street Monroe, LA 71207 Suite 3150 jmorris@creditorlawyers. com New Orleans, LA 70130 Ic,annon@hinshawlaw.com Lindsay Meador Young Peyton C. Lambert 3861 Ambassador Caffery Pz 601 Poydras St., Ste. 2660 Lafayette, LA 70503 New Orleans, LA Imeador@gallowaylawfirm. co 70130-6036 Tyler James Minick Constance Lafayette 701 Poydras Street 8338 Greenmoss Drive 40th Floor Baton Rouge, La 70806 New Orleans, LA 70139 Darrell Berry Hon. Beau Higginbotham 8338 Greenmoss Drive 300 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, La 70806 6th Floor Baton Rouge, LA 70802 In accordance with Local Rule 6 of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, I hereby certify that this notice of judgment and disposition and the attached disposition were transmitted is date to the trial judge or equivalent, all counsel of record, and all parties not represented by counsel. If 47-1 NAL. Q Pd CLERK OF COURT i j DARRELL BERRY, PRO SE, AND CONSTANCE LAFAYETI' E, PRO SE VERSUS ks.H WELLS FARGO BANK., NA; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM,, ( MFRS); LSF10 MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, LLC; DEAN MORRIS, L. L. C.; CANDANCE A. COURTEAU; SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICINGf LLC ( SLS); U. S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF10 MASTER PARTICIPATION TR T; FAY SERVICING, LLC; CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; DOES I THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, ET AL. Judgment Rendered: ON APPEAL FROM THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SECTION 22 EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER C- 724405 Darrell Berry Pro Se Appellants Constance Lafayette Baton Rouge, Louisiana Peyton C. Lambert Attorney for Defendants -Appellees New Orleans, Louisiana Mortgage Electronic Registration System, U. S. Bank Trust National Association Solely as Trustee for LSF10 Master Participation Trust, and LSF10 Mortgage Holdings, LLC BEFORE: THERIOT, GREENE, and EDWARDS, 33. GREENE, J. In this appeal, the Plaintiffs appeal a judgment denying their motion to strike the defendants' exceptions of vagueness, As pendens, and improper cumulation of actions. After review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and decline to convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs. We also deny several motions filed by the Plaintiffs after the appeal was lodged. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND) On December 27, 2005, Plaintiffs Darrell Berry and Constance Lafayette ( Plaintiffs) borrowed $ 184,000 from LoanCity and, in return, executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the amount borrowed. The promissory note was secured by a mortgage encumbering property located at 8338 Greenmoss Drive, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On November 6, 2012, the mortgage was assigned to Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. ( Wells Fargo). Before the instant suit was filed, the Plaintiffs defaulted on the promissory note and mortgage. Pursuant to the terms thereof, on or about April 10, 2017, Wells Fargo filed an executory process suit seeking a seizure and sale of the mortgaged property — that suit is captioned Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Darrell Kendrick Berry and Constance Lafayette Berry, Suit No. 656,991, Section 22 in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court 19th The JDQ for the Parish of East Baton Rouge ( the 2017 Executory Process Suit). trial court, finding that Wells Fargo met the requirements for foreclosure, issued an order authorizing executory process and also issued a writ of seizure and sale of the mortgaged property. However, the sheriffs sale was continually delayed and cancelled by various lawsuits and bankruptcy proceedings flied by the Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, alleging Wells Fargo did not follow the proper procedure in the 2017 Executory Process Suit, on October 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit seeking injunctive relief and damages under Suit No. 724,405 in the 19th 3DC the 2022 Injunction Suit). In their petition, the Plaintiffs named several defendants, including the instant appellees, LISF10 Mortgage Holdings, LLC ( LSF10), U. S. Bank Trust I We borrow certain facts and procedural history from this Court's prior opinion in Berry v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 2025- 0068 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 23/ 25), 427 So. 3d 402, writ denied, 2026- 00198 ( La. 4/ 21/ 26), 429 So. 3d 736. 2 National Association as Trustee for LSF10 Master Participation Trust ( U. S. Bank), and Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. ( MERS). 2 Over approximately the next two years, the defendants in the 2022 Injunction Suit, individually or in varying groups, filed or adopted numerous exceptions, objecting to the Plaintiffs' claims based on vagueness, As pendens, improper cumulation, failure to state a cause of action, prescription, peremption, and res judicata. Pertinent herein, on LLC November 10, 2022, defendants Fay Servicing, LLC and Caliber Home Loans, On Fay/ Caliber) filed exceptions of vagueness, As pendens, and improper cumulation. March 8, 2024, LSF10 and U. S. Bank ( LSF10/ U. S. Bank), appellees in the instant suit, filed similar exceptions of vagueness, As pendens, and improper cumulation. The Plaintiffs responded by filing motions to strike3 Fay/ Caliber's exceptions and LSF10/ U. S. Bank's exceptions. On May 13, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on several exceptions, including those filed by Fay/ Caliber and LSF10/ U. S. Bank, and also addressed the Plaintiffs' motions to strike those exceptions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court orally denied the Plaintiffs' motions to strike. On July 1, 2024, the trial court signed one judgment memorializing its denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to strike Fay/ Caliber's exceptions of vagueness, As pendens, and improper cumulation ( the Fay/ Caliber judgment). On the same date, July 1, 2024, the trial court signed another judgment memorializing its denial of the Plaintiffs' motion to strike LSF10/ U. S. Bank's exceptions of vagueness, lis pendens, and improper cumulation ( the LSF10/ U. S. Bank judgment).4 The Plaintiffs appealed the adverse judgments. This Court lodged the appeal of the Fay/ Caliber judgment under (locket number 2025 CA 0068. In Berry v. Wells Fargo 2 MERS is named as an appellee in this case and is named as one of the parties in whose favor the July 1, 2024 judgment appealed herein was rendered. However, the appellate record contains no exception of vagueness, As pendens, and improper cumulation filed by MERS. 3 Although the Plaintiffs captioned each of their underlying pleadings as a " demand to strike," we reference the pleadings as motions to strike, as done in Berry v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 2025- 0068 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 23/ 25), 427 So. 3d 402, 405, n. 1, writ denied, 2026- 00198 ( La. 4/ 21/ 26), 429 So. 3d 736. 4 At the May 13, 2024 hearing, the trial court also heard exceptions of res judicata, no cause of action, prescription, and peremption filed by defendant, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC ( SLS). On July 1, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment granting SLSs exception of resjudicata and dismissing all claims against SLS with prejudice. The Plaintiffs appealed that judgment under this Court's docket number 2026 CA 0494 and that appeal remains pending before this Court. 3 Bank NA, 2025- 0068 ( La. App. I Cir. 12/ 23/ 25), 427 So. 3d 402, 406- 07, writ denied, 2026- 00198 ( La. 4/ 21/ 26, 429 So. 3d 736 ( Berry 0068), the Court dismissed that appeal, finding the Fay/ Caliber judgment was interlocutory and non -appealable and declined to review the judgment under its supervisory jurisdiction. This Court lodged the appeal of the LSF10/ U. S. Bank judgment under docket number 2026 CA 0495, the instant appeal. In conjunction with this appeal, the Plaintiffs filed the following motions in this Court: a Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction; a Motion to Stay Appellate Proceedings Pending Supervisory Review; Motion to Strike Briefing Schedule for Lack of Jurisdiction; a Request for Stay of Proceedings pending Supreme Court writ ruling); and a Motion for Judicial Notice of Absence of Lodged Appellate Record. Also, this Court issued a rule to show cause, noting the LSF10/ U. S. Bank judgment appeared to be an interlocutory, non -appealable ruling, and ordering the parties to show cause as to whether the appeal should be dismissed. The Plaintiffs' motions and the rule to show cause were referred to this panel to decide along with the merits of the appeal. DISCUSSION This Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to final judgments and to interlocutory judgments when expressly allowed by law. See La. C. C. P. arts. 1841, 2083( A) and ( C). We have reviewed the LSF10/ U. S. Bank judgment. We conclude the reasoning applied by the Berry 0688 Court equally applies herein. That is, the LSF10/ U. S. Bank judgment is interlocutory and non -appealable. Further, after reviewing the factors set forth in Herlitz Construction Company, Inc, v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc, 396 So. 2d 878 La. 1981) ( per curiam), we decline to review the LSF10/ U. S. Bank judgment under our supervisory jurisdiction at this time. The Plaintiffs' claims against LSF10 and U. S. Bank have been dismissed with prejudice by a separately signed July 1, 2024 judgment, which granted those defendants' exceptions of no cause of action and prescription. The Plaintiffs appealed that judgment under this Court's docket number 2026 CA 0496 and that appeal remains pending before this Court. Accord Berry 0688, 427 So. 3d at 406- 07, dismissing a similar appeal. 2 As to the Plaintiffs' above referenced pending motions, we also conclude the reasoning applied by the Berm 0688 Court applies. That is, based on this Court's lack of appellate jurisdiction, as well as our decision not to convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs, we deny all of the motions as moot. Accord Berry 0688, 427 So. 3d 1- CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we grant the rule to show cause and dismiss the instant appeal. We deny the pending motions filed by Darrell Berry and Constance Lafayette. We assess costs of the appeal to Darrell Berry and Constance Lafayette. RULE TO SHOW CAUSE GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION Tie i DISMISS APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATEJURISDICTION DENIED; • TO STAY APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS PENDING SUPERVISORY REVIE, DENIED; • i i STRIKE BRIEFING SCHEDULEFOR LACK• JURISDICTION DENIED; REQUESTi OF • r DENIED; ! MOTION FOR! ! OF OF i! D APPELLATE RECOR r DENIED. 61