Gary Matthew Patterson v. Jason Williams in His Capacity as the District Atorney for the Parish of Orleans and Devin George in His Capacity as Louisiana State Registrar and Vital Records Custodian

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 13, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-0711
• Status: Published

Opinion

GARY MATTHEW * NO. 2024-CA-0711 PATTERSON * VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL * JASON WILLIAMS IN HIS FOURTH CIRCUIT CAPACITY AS THE DISTRICT * ATORNEY FOR THE PARISH STATE OF LOUISIANA OF ORLEANS AND DEVIN ******* GEORGE IN HIS CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA STATE REGISTRAR AND VITAL RECORDS CUSTODIAN

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2024-00859, DIVISION “I-14” Honorable Lori Jupiter, Judge ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge Monique G. Morial)

James A. Graham Ashley Potter Sharon D. Williams Erin E. Rum THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. GRAHAM, LLC 701 Loyola Avenue, Suite 403 New Orleans, LA 70113

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

Neal R. Elliott, Jr. BUREAU OF LEGAL SERVICES LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS 628 N. Fourth Street P.O. Box 3836 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3836

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

VACATED AND REMANDED

MARCH 13, 2025 DLD In this matter concerning a petition for name change and for issuance of a TGC MGM new birth certificate, the defendant, Nadine Smith, in her official capacity as

Louisiana State Registrar and Vital Records Custodian (“State Registrar”), appeals

the district court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Gary Matthew Patterson

(“Patterson”). For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment of the district

court and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 30, 2024, Patterson filed a verified petition for name change and

for issuance of a new birth certificate. Patterson desired to have the name changed

to Blair Olivia Patterson and the designation of sex changed to female. The

petition was filed without attaching a certified copy of the original birth certificate

as required by La. R.S. 40:62(B) or any other attachments. The State Registrar

was served with the petition, through the Louisiana Department of Health’s Bureau

of Legal Services, on March 11, 2024.

1 The State Registrar filed an answer to the petition and a request for notice on

March 22, 2024. On April 12, 2024, Patterson filed a motion and order to fix for

trial, which requested that the matter be submitted on briefs, but did not state

whether the State Registrar had agreed or objected to the submission of the matter

on briefs. The order accompanying this motion was stamped “Moot” by the

district court with a notation of “New Motion Filed.”

On July 30, 2024, Patterson filed a trial memorandum in support of petition

for issuance of new birth certificate without a certificate of service certifying that a

copy was served on the State Registrar. On August 19, 2024, an order was

rendered by the district court granting the petition “on the pleadings; no trial

necessary.” A signed judgment was rendered by the district court on September

30, 2024, and it ordered the State Registrar “to correct birth record (#119-1996-

033-00709) to change the sex designated thereon to Female and in accordance with

La. R.S. 40:62 shall issue petitioner a new birth certificate reflecting the foregoing

gender correction.” The State Registrar filed a motion and order for suspensive

appeal on October 21, 2024.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, the State Registrar raises the following assignments of error: (1)

the district court erred by rendering and signing a final judgment that, as the record

indicates, was not the product of a final summary or ordinary disposition held

contradictorily against the State Registrar and was essentially an ex parte

judgment; (2) the district court erred by rendering and signing a final judgment

2 that, as the record indicates, does not appear to be based on the consideration, at a

hearing, of the evidentiary proof required under La. R.S. 40:62(C); and (3) the

district court erred, in a procedurally flawed ex parte manner, by allowing the

petitioner to submit a matter that La. R.S. 40:62(B) requires to proceed

contradictorily against the State Registrar, for final consideration by

brief/memorandum rather than through the presentation of the required evidence at

a contradictory hearing.

Questions of law, such as the proper interpretation of a statute, are reviewed

by appellate courts under the de novo standard of review, and the appellate court is

not required to give deference to the lower court in interpreting a statute. Carver v.

Louisiana Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 17-1340, p. 4 (La. 1/30/18), 239 So.3d 226, 230;

St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Guy Hopkins Constr. Co., 16-0907,

p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/5/17), 220 So.3d 6, 10.

La. R.S. 40:62(A) provides that “[a]ny person born in Louisiana who has

sustained sex reassignment surgery which has changed the anatomical structure of

the individual to that of a sex other than that which appears on the original birth

certificate of the individual, may petition a court of competent jurisdiction to

obtain a new certificate of birth.” “[S]uits authorized by this Section shall be filed

contradictorily against the state registrar.” La. R.S. 40:62(B). “The court shall

require such proof as it deems necessary to be convinced that the petitioner was

properly diagnosed as a transsexual or pseudo-hermaphrodite, that sex

reassignment or corrective surgery has been properly performed upon the

3 petitioner, and that as a result of such surgery and subsequent medical treatment

the anatomical structure of the sex of the petitioner has been changed to a sex other

than that which is stated on the original birth certificate of the petitioner.” La. R.S.

40:62(C).

La. R.S. 40:62(B) requires that the petitioner proceed contradictorily against

the State Registrar. In the instant case, the plaintiff filed a motion and order to fix

for trial that stated “mover desires that this matter be decided on briefs submitted

to the court and that a judgment be granted in response to Mover’s request for a

new birth record.” Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a trial memorandum in support of

petition for issuance of new birth certificate. The trial memorandum did contain an

order to set the matter for trial. However, on August 19, 2024, the district court

crossed through the language setting the matter for trial, stamped “Granted” on the

order, and added the handwritten notation of “on the pleadings; no trial necessary.”

The September 30, 2024 judgment does not indicate that any type of hearing was

held in the final disposition of this matter. Additionally, the appeal record is

devoid of any minute or hearing transcripts that indicate any form of hearing or

trial was held in this matter and indicates that the disposition of this matter took

place in an ex parte manner. None of the proceedings comported with the specific

contradictory requirements of La. R.S. 40:60(B). In Arnaud v. George, 23-744

(La. App. 3 Cir. 4/24/24), 387 So.3d 818, the Third Circuit addressed the State

Registrar’s appeal of procedural deficiencies and irregularities by vacating the

4 district court’s deficient judgment and remanding the matter back to the district

court for further proceedings.

The evidentiary considerations in La. R.S. 40:62(C) also suggest that the

district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing in its disposition of this

matter. La. R.S. 40:62(C) provides in part that:

petitioner was properly diagnosed as a transsexual or pseudo- hermaphrodite, that sex reassignment or corrective surgery has been properly performed upon the petitioner, and that as a result of such surgery and subsequent medical treatment the anatomical structure of the sex of the petitioner has been changed to a sex other than that which is stated on the original birth certificate of the petitioner.

This statutory language requires that the proof deemed necessary by the

presiding court should be in the form of evidence taken, by the court, within the

context of a hearing. By analogy, this Court recently held, in the context of a

summary judgment motion before a court, that “La. C.C.P. art. 963 requires a

contradictory hearing when the mover is not clearly entitled or when there is a

need for supporting proof.” Mangum v. Tate, 24-0260, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir.

5/29/24), 390 So.3d 452, 455. Accordingly, some form of hearing or trial that is

conducted by summary or ordinary procedure is necessary. Therefore, the district

court in this case was clearly and legally wrong in not holding a contradictory

proceeding before granting the plaintiff’s petition.

Finally, the State Registrar filed along with its answer a “Request For

Notice” in accordance with the provisions of La. C.C.P. art. 1572. That request

provides for at least a ten-day notice to the requesting party prior to the trial date.

No such notice was forthcoming in this matter as the trial court granted an ex parte

5 motion on the pleadings. As such the provisions of La. C.C.P. art. 1572 were not

met.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment granting

Patterson’s petition for name change and for issuance of a new birth certificate is

hereby vacated and this matter is remanded to the district court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.