All Star East Properties, L.L.C. v. Romy Schofield-Samuel, Director of Finance for the City of New Orleans

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CA-0514
• Status: Published
• Author: Judge Daniel L. Dysart

Opinion

ALL STAR EAST * NO. 2025-CA-0514 PROPERTIES, L.L.C. * VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL * ROMY SCHOFIELD-SAMUEL, FOURTH CIRCUIT DIRECTOR OF FINANCE FOR * THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2025-04420, DIVISION “B-11” Honorable Marissa Hutabarat

****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ******

(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Paula A. Brown)

JENKINS, J., CONCURS AND ASSIGNS REASONS BROWN, J., CONCURS AND ASSIGNS REASONS

Salvador I. Bivalacqua Robert Ellis BIVALACQUA GELE & ELLIS, LLC 650 Poydras Street Suite 2200 New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Max V. Camp ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Elizabeth A. Weigand DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Tanya L. Irvin DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Corwin St. Raymond CHIEF DEPUTY ATTORNEY Colette T. White SR. CHIEF DEPUTY ATTORNEY Donesia D. Turner CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street City Hall - Room 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

AFFIRMED

FEBRUARY 4, 2026 DLD In this case, which arises from a tax sale, the plaintiff, All Star East

Properties, L.L.C. (“All Star East”), appeals the trial court’s denial of its writ of

mandamus directed against the defendant, Romy Schofield-Samuel, Director of

Finance for the City of New Orleans (“the City”). For the reasons that follow, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 2, 2025, All Star East participated in an online auction of

adjudicated property, conducted on behalf of the City by its agent, Archon

Information Systems, L.L.C. (hereinafter referred to by its trade name,

“CivicSource”). As a requirement to participate in the online auction, a

prospective participant must read and agree to the terms of use that are posted on

the CivicSource website. The Terms of Use include a section on sale cancellation,

which provide where the City “reserves the right to cancel a sale and refund the tax

sale purchase price without the repayment of the redemption penalty or interest”

1 when it “determines that the tax sale should not have occurred due to

circumstances outside of its control.”

All Star East submitted the winning bid on a piece of property located at

8501 Lake Forest Boulevard, New Orleans, La, 70127. However, on April 3,

2025, the City communicated in writing to CivicSource and instructed it to cancel

the sale of the property and to provide notice to All Star East of the cancellation.

That same day, CivicSource provided notice of the cancellation of the sale of the

property to All Star East.

Nevertheless, on April 8, 2025, the City provided wiring instructions to All

Star East. On April 10, 2025, All Star East wired $457,015.88 to CivicSource on

April 10, 2025. However, later that day, All Star East was again informed that the

City would not proceed with the sale.

On May 2, 2025, All Star East filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking

to order the City to sell to it the Lake Forest Boulevard property. The respective

parties filed briefs in support and in opposition to the petition. A hearing took

place before the trial court on May 12, 2025, and following the arguments, the trial

court rendered an oral judgment denying the petition. On May 27, 2025, the trial

court read and signed the order denying the petition. It is from this judgment that

All Star East has taken a devolutive appeal.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, All Star East raises the following assignments of error: (1) the

trial court erred in applying the tax sale terms of use to the public auction of an

adjudicated property and (2) the trial court erred in failing to issue a writ of

2 mandamus to compel the City to complete the ministerial tasks necessary to

memorialize the completed sale.

We will first address All Star East’s second assignment of error and the use

of a writ of mandamus. Through a writ of mandamus, All Star East seeks to have

the Finance Director of the City of New Orleans to: (i) reinstate a cancelled sale of

adjudicated property, (ii) recognize All Star East as the highest bidder, and (iii)

transfer property rights of the property at 8501 Lake Forest Boulevard, New

Orleans, LA 70127 (the “Property”) to All Star East.

The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, in Title III, classifies the writ of

mandamus as an “Extraordinary Remedy.”1 The Louisiana Supreme Court held

that “[m]andamus is an extraordinary remedy which should be applied only where

ordinary means fail to afford adequate relief.” Louisiana Assessor’s Retirement

Fund v. City of New Orleans, 01-0735, p. 2 (La. 2/26/02), 809 So.2d 955, 956

(citations omitted). “The writ should be issued only in cases where the law

provides no relief by ordinary means or where the delay involved in obtaining

ordinary relief may cause injustice.” Id. The mandamus remedy “must be used by

the court sparingly – only to compel action that is clearly provided by law, where it

is the only available remedy or where delay occasioned by the use of any other

remedy would cause injustice.” Regional Transit Authority v. Kahn, 99-2015, p. 6

(La. App. 4 Cir. 8/26/99), 742 So.2d 960, 964 (citations omitted). “Mandamus lies

only when a public official refuses to perform a duty that the law clearly states he

must perform. It never issues in doubtful cases.” Id. (citing Acadian Ambulance

Sercice, Inc. v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 97-2129, p. 7 (La. App. 1 Cir.

11/6/98), 722 So.2d 317, 322 (citing Bye v. Bd. of Trustees of Police Pension

1 See La. C.C.P. art. 3861, FN 1.

3 Fund, 274 So.2d 855, 856 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1973))); State ex. Rel. Neighborhood

Action Committee v. Edwards, 94-0630, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/3/95), 652 So.2d

698,700. “The remedy of mandamus is not available to command performance of

an act that contains any element of discretion, however slight.” Charter School of

Pine Grove, Inc. v. St. Helena Parish School Bd., 07-2238, p. 13 (La. App. 1 Cir.

2/19/09), 9 So. 3d 209, 221 (citations omitted).

There is also no ministerial duty for the Finance Director to complete a sale.

All Star East fails to cite any legal authority for a mandate for the Finance Director

to sell properties adjudicated by the City or to complete a sale once the procedural

process has begun. Further, La. R.S. 44:2204 allows the political subdivision to

impose terms and conditions on the sale.

All Star East argues that the City binds itself because there is language in the

Terms of Use that states: “A successful bidder of adjudicated property shall be

issued a Non-Warranty Cash Sale Certificate as provided by La. R.S. 47:2207 B

within 45 days of the close of the auction.” However, that language must be read

in the context of the document as a whole. The Terms of Use, which must be read

and agreed to by a prospective bidder prior to bidding on a property, clearly state

that the City reserves the right to cancel the sale and refund the winning bidder its

money. The Terms of Use state:

If the political subdivision determines that the tax sale should not have occurred due to circumstances outside of its control, it reserves the right to cancel a sale and refund the tax sale purchaser the tax sale purchase price without repayment of the redemption penalty or interest in a manner pursuant to the applicable laws of the State in which the property is located.

A separate section within the Terms of Use, concerning the removal of

property from the list, provides that “[t]he [City] reserves the right to remove any

4 property from the tax sale any time prior to the conclusion of the sale, without

notice.” As such, the City is not legally bound to complete the sale process.

Therefore, the Finance Director did not refuse to complete a ministerial duty,

which she was obligated to perform. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is not

available in this situation.

We also note that a writ of mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle through

which All Star East should have sought relief in this case. All Star East clearly has

the right to bring an action for breach of contract via ordinary process. Because

relief is available through ordinary process, mandamus is not an appropriate in this

matter.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of All

Star East’s writ of mandamus.