Opinion
2019 CA 0192
03-04-2020
JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a Hope Medical Group for Women v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & Rebekah Gee, M.D., in her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health
Ellie T. Schilling, Mandie Landry, Megan E. Snider, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee June Medical Services, LLC d/b/a Hope Medical Group for Women Neal R. Elliott, Jr., Kimberly L. Humbles, Brandon J. Babineaux, Christina Legros Robertson, Lavon Raymond Johnson, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants, Louisiana Department of Health and, Rebekah Gee, M.D., in her Official, Capacity as Secretary of the, Louisiana Department of Health
Ellie T. Schilling, Mandie Landry, Megan E. Snider, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee June Medical Services, LLC d/b/a Hope Medical Group for Women
Neal R. Elliott, Jr., Kimberly L. Humbles, Brandon J. Babineaux, Christina Legros Robertson, Lavon Raymond Johnson, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants, Louisiana Department of Health and, Rebekah Gee, M.D., in her Official, Capacity as Secretary of the, Louisiana Department of Health
BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
McCLENDON, J.
In this related appeal to the challenge of a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of Louisiana's Abortion Facilities Licensing Standards, the defendants appeal the district court's award of litigation expenses in favor of the plaintiff. For the following reasons, we vacate the judgment.
June Medical Services, LLC d/b/a Hope Medical Group for Women (June Medical) is a reproductive health clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. June Medical filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment pursuant to LSA-R.S. 49:963, alleging that the Department of Health (the Department) did not substantially comply with the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded its statutory authority when the Department promulgated new regulations for Louisiana's Outpatient Abortion Facility Licensing Law. See June Medical Services, LLC d/b/a Hope Medical Group for Women v. Louisiana Department of Health, et al, 2019 CA 0191 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/4/20), ––– So.3d ––––, 2020 WL 1061025, also decided this date.
Shortly after the district court granted June Medical's motion for summary judgment, denied the Department's cross-motion for summary judgment, and declared Louisiana's Abortion Facilities Licensing Standards invalid and unenforceable, June Medical filed an ex parte Motion and Incorporated Memorandum for Litigation Expenses. The order was signed by the district court on December 27, 2018, ordering the Department to pay June Medical $7,500.00 for reasonable litigation expenses incurred in the underlying litigation. In this appeal, the Department challenges the award of litigation expenses.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 49:965.1A provides:
When a small business files a petition seeking: (1) relief from the application or enforcement of an agency rule or regulation, (2) judicial review of the validity or applicability of an agency rule, (3) judicial review of an adverse declaratory order or ruling, or (4) judicial review of a final decision or order in an adjudication proceeding, the petition may include a claim against the agency for the recovery of reasonable litigation expenses. If the small business prevails and the court determines that the agency acted without substantial justification, the court may award such expenses, in addition to granting any other appropriate relief.
"Reasonable litigation expenses" are defined as "any expenses, not exceeding seven thousand five hundred dollars in connection with any one claim, reasonably incurred in opposing or contesting the agency action, including costs and expenses incurred in both the administrative proceeding and the judicial proceeding, fees and expenses of expert or other witnesses, and attorney fees." LSA-R.S. 49:965.ID. In its petition for declaratory judgment, June Medical prayed for "all costs of its suit" as well as "any and all other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper."
In its appeal, the Department first argues that the district court erred in awarding June Medical $7,500.00 in reasonable litigation expenses because there was no contradictory hearing. The Department also asserts that the district court erred in finding that the Department acted without substantial justification. Because we are reversing the summary judgment of the district court in the underlying matter, 2019 CA 0191, we must vacate the award of $7,500.00 in litigation expenses. As there is no longer a prevailing party, an award of litigation expenses is inappropriate at this time.
For these reasons, we vacate and set aside the December 27, 2018 judgment of the district court ordering the Department to pay June Medical $7,500.00 for reasonable litigation expenses. Costs of this appeal are assessed to June Medical Services, LLC d/b/a Hope Medical Group for Women. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B).