Opinion
NUMBER 2011 CA 1896
05-02-2012
ALVIN FAIRBURN & ASSOCIATES, LLC AND MCLIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MICHAEL GRIMMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LIVINGSTON PARISH PRESIDENT
S. Bradley Phorer Julie J. Baxter Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Plantiffs/Appellees Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC, and McLin & Associates, Inc. Harry J. Philips, Jr. William H.L. Kaufman Baton Rouge, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Michael Grimmer, individually and as the former Livingston Parish President
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On appeal from the
21 st Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Livingston
State of Louisiana
Suit Number 134,242
Honorable Zorraine M. Waguespack, Judge
S. Bradley Phorer
Julie J. Baxter
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for
Plantiffs/Appellees
Alvin Fairburn & Associates,
LLC, and McLin & Associates,
Inc.
Harry J. Philips, Jr.
William H.L. Kaufman
Baton Rouge, LA
Counsel for
Defendant/Appellant
Michael Grimmer, individually
and as the former Livingston
Parish President
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, KUHN, AND GUIDRY, JJ.
GUIDRY, J.
This matter was originally brought before the district court pursuant to a petition for mandamus in which the appellees, Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC and McLin & Associates, Inc., sought the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus commanding then parish president, Michael Grimmer, to comply with resolution LPR No. 11-254, wherein the Livingston Parish Council directed Mr. Grimmer to execute the signing of a check to pay Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC and McLin & Associates, Inc. for professional engineering services the companies provided relative to the construction of bridges and roads throughout the parish. Following a hearing on the petition, the district court determined that the action sought was a ministerial duty, and therefore made the writ peremptory. Mr. Grimmer filed a suspensive appeal, but while the appeal was pending, an election was held on November 19, 2011, wherein Mr. Grimmer was defeated in his bid for re-election; thus, he no longer holds the office of Livingston Parish President.
On February 23, 2012, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss the pending appeal as moot, since the new Livingston Parish President executed and signed a check in payment to the appellees, which fact has been acknowledged by the appellant, Mr. Grimmer.
This court can take judicial notice of the facts regarding the election of a new parish president. See La. C.E. art. 201; State ex rel. J.R.B., 08-1428, p. 2 (La. App. 3d Cir. 3/4/09), 11 So. 3d 2, 3.
Although the appellant questions the authority of the Livingston Parish Council to pass the resolution authorizing the work of and payment to the appellees, this was only a defense asserted by the appellant and never a formal demand made by the appellant by petition for declaratory judgment or recoventional demand. Hence, there appears no basis for maintaining the appeal to render what would essentially be an advisory opinion.
It is well settled that courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies. A case is moot when a rendered judgment or decree can serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief or effect. If the case is moot, there is no subject matter on which the judgment of the court can operate. The justiciable controversy must normally exist at every stage of the proceeding, including appellate stages; and when the actual controversy lapses, any judicial pronouncement on the matter would be an impermissible advisory opinion. Joseph v. Ratcliff, 10-1342, p. 7 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 63 So. 3d 220, 225. As the parties do not dispute that the matter pending before this court has been rendered moot, we will dismiss the pending appeal. The parties are to equally bear their share of the costs of these proceedings.
APPEAL DISMISSED.