With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judgment |fiwithin the ambit of La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B). Therefore, it is not appealable absent designation as a final judgment by the district court. No such designation appears in the record, nor do the Rosenbergs assert that they have sought or obtained one. We therefore lack appellate jurisdiction to review the September 6, 2016 judgment. See Delahoussaye v. Tulane Univ. Hosp. & Clinic, 2012-0906, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/20/13), 156 So.3d 560, 562. Next, considering the September 27, 2016 judgment, the district court’s ruling, denying Lobell’s motion to amend the August 22, 2013 judgment, is an interlocutory decree and is not part of an unrestricted appeal from a valid final judgment. See Dunker v. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 411 So.2d 71, 72 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1982) (<HOLDING>). See also Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v.

A: holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial by operation of law because motion was not properly presented even though a notice of presentment was filed and the docket sheet contained an entry for the motion having been filed
B: holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect
C: holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
D: holding that there was no right to appeal an order denying a motion for correction of judgment which was filed after delays for applying for new trial and appeal expired
D.