Opinion
NUMBER 2015 CA 0048
09-21-2015
EDWIN RAY PARKER & KENNETH BRAD OTT v. THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY & AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL COLLEGE, AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
J. Arthur Smith, III Adrienne D. Rachel Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Edwin Parker, Kenneth Ott, and The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 17 Chris J. Roy, Sr. Alexandria, LA Counsel for Intervenors/Appellees Angelia Iles, Evelyn C. Cooper, Beverly Ford, Sylvia Carter, Carrie Ferguson-Stork, & all domicilaries and citizens of Rapides Parish, Louisiana and as individuals and employees of Huey P. Long Emily Andrews Angelique Duhon Freel Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellant The Senate of the State of Louisiana & the State of Louisiana Harry J. Phillips, Jr. Cyntia M. Amedee Megan F. Bice Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical College
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
Suit Number C630969
Honorable Robert Downing, Judge Pro Tempore J. Arthur Smith, III
Adrienne D. Rachel
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Edwin Parker, Kenneth Ott, and
The American Federation of State,
County & Municipal Employees,
Council 17
Chris J. Roy, Sr.
Alexandria, LA
Counsel for Intervenors/Appellees
Angelia Iles, Evelyn C. Cooper,
Beverly Ford, Sylvia Carter, Carrie
Ferguson-Stork, & all domicilaries
and citizens of Rapides Parish,
Louisiana and as individuals and
employees of Huey P. Long
Emily Andrews
Angelique Duhon Freel
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
The Senate of the State of Louisiana
& the State of Louisiana
Harry J. Phillips, Jr.
Cyntia M. Amedee
Megan F. Bice
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Board of Supervisors of Louisiana
State University & Agricultural &
Mechanical College
BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. GUIDRY, J.
Defendants, the State of Louisiana (State), the Senate of the State of Louisiana (Senate), and the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (Board), appeal from a judgment granting a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiffs, Edwin Ray Parker, Kenneth Brad Ott, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 17. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
During its 2014 Regular Session, the Louisiana Legislature adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 48 (SCR 48), which, among other things, approved the closure of the Huey P. Long Medical Center in Pineville, Louisiana (FIPL Medical Center).
On March 31, 2014, the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare (Committee) posted a Notice of Meeting that was scheduled for April 2, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. The Notice of Meeting included a proposed agenda, which did not reference SCR 48. However, the notice did state that the agenda listed therein was tentative and may be revised prior to the scheduled meeting and gave the means by which any revised notices could be located.
Thereafter, on April 1, 2014, at 4:07 p.m., the Committee posted another Notice of Meeting containing a revised agenda, which added consideration of SCR 48. The synopsis for SCR 48, as contained in the revised agenda, stated:
HEALTH CARE Provides for legislative approval of and support to the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University for the strategic collaboration with the [S]tate in creating a new model of health care delivery in the Alexandria and Pineville area.
The Committee subsequently held its meeting as scheduled and reported SCR 48 with amendments. Thereafter, SCR 48 was adopted by the full Senate and the House of Representatives.
On June 3, 2014, plaintiffs, employees of HPL Medical Center and/or the employees' representatives, filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Louisiana Open Meetings Law, claiming that the Senate failed to provide adequate public notice that SCR 48 was going to be considered by the Committee and that the synopsis of SCR 48 was insufficient to put them on notice that the resolution pertained to the closure of HPL Medical Center. As such, the plaintiffs alleged that the Committee's consideration and action upon SCR 48 violated Rules 13.73 and 13.75 of the Rules of Order of the Louisiana Senate and, as a result, also violated the Louisiana Open Meetings Law, La. R.S. 42:19(B), and La. Const. Art. 12, § 3. Plaintiffs also alleged that SCR 48 improperly amended La. R.S. 17:1518.1 and, therefore, is unconstitutional because it failed to meet the requirements of La. Const. Art. 3 for legislative instruments that amend or enact law.
Plaintiffs sought a declaration that SCR 48 is null and void because it was passed by the Legislature in violation of the Open Meetings Law; statutory damages of $100 per violation pursuant to La. R.S. 42:28; and a preliminary and, in due course, a permanent injunction, along with attorney fees, costs, and damages, enjoining defendants from applying, enforcing, and/or implementing the provisions of SCR 48. Plaintiffs also sought a declaration that SCR 48 was passed in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.
Following a hearing on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' request and enjoined the defendants from enforcing, applying, and/or implementing the provisions of SCR 48 and closing the HPL Medical Center. However, in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 3612(B), the trial court suspended the enforcement of the injunction upon the defendants' perfecting an appeal. The trial court signed a judgment in conformity with its ruling on July 9, 2014.
Thereafter, the defendants' timely perfected the instant appeal, initially seeking review of the trial court's judgment with the Louisiana Supreme Court based upon the trial court's oral reasons stating that SCR 48 violated the Louisiana Constitution. The supreme court, however, dismissed the appeal, finding:
[T]he appeal is not properly before this court. Article V, § 5(D) vests appellate jurisdiction in this court in cases in which "a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional...." A review of the district court's judgment indicates the court merely grants plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement, application and implementation of the resolution, without making any mention of the constitutionality of the resolution.
Although the district court's reasons for judgment discuss the constitutionality of the resolution, it is well-settled law that the trial court's oral or written reasons form no part of the judgment.
Because there is no declaration of unconstitutionality in the district court's judgment, there is no basis for the exercise of this court's appellate jurisdiction. [Citations omitted.]
On rehearing, the supreme court transferred the appeal to this court for further proceedings. Parker v. Senate of the State, 14-1816 (La. 11/11/14), ___ So. 3d ___ (per curiam).
DISCUSSION
A preliminary injunction is an interlocutory procedural device designed to preserve the status quo between the parties, pending a trial on the merits. Tobin v. Jindal, 11-0838, p. 3 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/10/12), 91 So. 3d 317, 320. Although the judgment on the preliminary injunction is interlocutory, a party aggrieved by a judgment either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is entitled to an appeal. La. C.C.P. art. 3612; Tobin, 11-0838 at p. 4, 91 So. 3d at 320.
Generally, plaintiffs seeking issuance of a preliminary injunction bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie showing that they will prevail on the merits and that irreparable injury or loss will result without the preliminary injunction. See La. C.C.P. art. 3601; Silliman Private School Corp. v. Shareholder Group, 00-0065, p. 5 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/16/01), 789 So. 2d 20, 22-23, writ denied, 01-0594 (La. 3/30/01), 788 So. 2d 1194. However, a threat of irreparable injury need not be shown when the deprivation of a constitutional right is at issue or when the act sought to be enjoined is unlawful. See Piazza's Seafood World, LLC v. Odom, 07-2191, p. 10 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/23/08), 6 So. 3d 820, 826. The trial court enjoys considerable discretion in determining whether a preliminary injunction is warranted; thus, the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Piazza's Seafood, 07-2191 at p. 10, 6 So. 3d at 826.
Where the purpose of the injunctive relief is to prevent specifically threatened future conduct, but the act sought to be enjoined has already been committed or accomplished, there can be no ground for an injunction. Silliman, 00-0065 at p. 5, 789 So. 2d at 23. A court of appeal will not review a case when only injunctive relief is sought and the need for that relief has ceased to be a justiciable issue. Silliman, 00-0065 at p. 5, 789 So. 2d at 23. It is well settled that courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical, or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies. Tobin, 11-0838 at p. 4, 91 So. 3d at 321. A "justiciable controversy" is one presenting an existing actual and substantial controversy involving the legal relations of parties who have real adverse interests and upon whom the judgment of the court may effectively operate through a decree of conclusive character. Tobin, 11-0838 at p. 5, 91 So. 3d at 321.
According to Louisiana jurisprudence, an issue is moot when a judgment or decree on that issue has been "deprived of practical significance" or "made abstract or purely academic." Cat's Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, Through Department of Finance, 98-0601, p. 8 (La. 10/20/98), 720. So. 2d 1186, 1193; Tobin, 11-0838 at p. 5, 91 So. 3d at 321. Accordingly, a case is moot when a rendered judgment or decree can serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or effect. Cat's Meow, 98-0601 at p. 8, 720 So. 2d at 1193. Thus, when an appeal is taken from an order denying injunctive relief, and the act sought to be enjoined is accomplished pending appeal, the appeal will be dismissed as moot, as there is no subject matter on which the judgment of the court can operate. Tobin, 11-0838 at p, 5, 91 So. 3d at 321. Furthermore, the issue of mootness may be raised by the appellate court on its own motion. Lake Bistineau Preservation Society, Inc. v. Seales, 40.583, p. 7 (La. App, 2nd Cir. 2/10/06), 922 So. 2d 768, 773, writ denied, 06-0620 (La. 5/26/06), 930 So. 2d 27; see also Tobin, 11-0838 at p. 5n.6, 91 So. 3d at 321 n.6
In the instant case, the trial court heard evidence and rendered judgment regarding the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. The trial court granted the plaintiffs' request, ordering that a preliminary injunction issue enjoining, restraining, and prohibiting the Senate, Board, and State from enforcing, applying, and/or implementing the provisions of SCR 48 and closing HPL Medical Center. However, the trial court's judgment suspended the injunction in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 3612(B). Accordingly, although the trial court granted the preliminary injunction, the suspension of the injunction had the effect of a denial of injunctive relief, because the Senate, Board, and State could move forward with their plans to close HPL Medical Center in accordance with SCR 48. The parties acknowledge on appeal that HPL Medical Center was, in fact, closed during the pendency of the appeal of the preliminary injunction.
Therefore, because the activity that the plaintiffs sought to enjoin has already occurred, and the record is devoid of any evidence that the parties expressly agreed to submit the case for a final decision on the merits at the hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction, the matter before this court is moot, and it is inappropriate for this court to comment on the trial court's preliminary statements in its reasons for judgment regarding violations of the open meetings law and the constitutionality of SCR 48. See Felder v. The Political Firm, L.L.C., 14-1266, p. 10 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/24/15), ___ So. 3d ___, ___; see also Bally's Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana Gaming Control Board, 99-2617, p. 7 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1/31/01), 807 So. 2d 257, 263, writ denied, 01-0510 (La. 1/11/02), 807 So. 2d 225; see also Farmers Seafood Company, Inc. v. State, Department of Public Safety, 10-1534, pp. 2-3 (La. 9/3/10), 44 So. 3d 676, 678.
In fact, the trial court and the parties acknowledged multiple times at the hearing that the only issue before the trial court was the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. --------
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $172.50 are assessed equally among the defendants, the Senate of the State of Louisiana, the State of Louisiana, and the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
APPEAL DISMISSED.