Christopher Lehman v. Henry Guinn, Kevin D. Millican, Stephen Vanhook,bobby Vasseur, and City of Jennings

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 21, 2021
• Docket: CA-0021-0248
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 21-248

CHRISTOPHER LEHMAN

VERSUS

HENRY GUINN, KEVIN D. MILLICAN,

STEPHEN VANHOOK, BOBBY VASSEUR, AND

CITY OF JENNINGS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON DAVIS, NO. C-290-20 HONORABLE CRAIG STEVE GUNNELL, DISTRICT JUDGE

SYLVIA R. COOKS

CHIEF JUDGE

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Shannon J. Gremillion, Charles G. Fitzgerald, Judges.

MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED. Ben L. Mayeaux Robert Torian Jason T. Reed B. Lance Person NeunerPate Post Office Box 52828 Lafayette, LA 70505-2828 (337) 237-7000 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: City of Jennings Henry Guinn Kevin D. Millican Stephen Vanhook Bobby Vasseur

James Edward Sudduth, III Pierce A. Rapin Sudduth & Associates, LLC 1109 Pithon Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 480-0101 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Christopher Lehman Cooks, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Christopher Lehman, moves this court for an order striking certain

documents appended to the original brief of Appellees, City of Jennings, Bobby

Vasseur, Henry Guinn, Stephen Vanhook, and Kevin Millican. For the reasons

discussed herein, we deny the motion.

The documents at issue, pages 26 through 31 of Appellees’ original brief,

comprise certain sections of the Jennings Code of Ordinances and the Jennings Home

Rule Charter. Appellant argues that appellate courts may not consider evidence which

is not in the record on appeal and are not permitted to receive new evidence. Reese v.

Dresser Valve Indus., 10-241 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/10), 48 So.3d 406. Appellant adds

that Appellees submit only self-serving portions of the Jennings Code of Ordinances

and the Home Rule Charter that do not appear in the appellate record. As such,

Appellant urges that this court must follow the reasoning in Reese and strike all

documents appended at pages 26 through 31 of Appellees’ original brief.

In opposition, Appellees assert that in Appellant’s petition and appellate brief,

Appellant claims that provisions in the Jennings Home Rule Charter and the Jennings

Code of Ordinances require Appellees to take enforcement actions against Appellant’s

neighbors. Further, Appellant cites the provisions he contends are applicable and

requests that this court take judicial notice of the Jennings Code of Ordinances and

Jennings Home Rule Charter. Likewise, Appellees request that this court take judicial

notice of the Jennings Code of Ordinances and Jennings Home Rule Charter and

provide an appendix of the provisions cited for this court to review the text of the

ordinances. Appellees maintain that pursuant to the La.Code Evid. Art. 202(B)(1)(c), “A

court shall take judicial notice of the following if a party requests it and provides the

court with the information needed by it to comply with the request, and may take

judicial notice without request of a party of . . . Ordinances enacted by any political

subdivision of the State of Louisiana.” See Rathe v. Rathe, 17-1326 (La.App. 1 Cir.

8/21/18), 256 So.3d 1001. Appellees add that whether this court takes judicial notice

of the ordinances by considering the appendix or evaluates the ordinances elsewhere,

the effect will be the same.

Since Appellant seeks judicial notice of the Jennings Code of Ordinances and

the Jennings Home Rule Charter, we find no merit in Appellant’s motion to strike the

portions of the Jennings Code of Ordinances and Jennings Home Rule Charter

attached to Appellee’s brief. In keeping with La.Code Evid. art. 202(B)(1)(c), we take

judicial notice of the relevant portions of the Jennings Code of Ordinances and the

Jennings Home Rule Charter. Accordingly, we deny the motion.

MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.