JOSEPH J. BAZILE, JR. AND BARBARA B. NO. 25-CA-76 MIRE FIFTH CIRCUIT VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL GSS HOLDINGS LA, LLC, VETERANS FOOD MART, LLC AND OCCUPANTS AT 1227 STATE OF LOUISIANA VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD IN KENNER, LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 856-247, DIVISION "P" HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING
September 24, 2025
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel
REVERSED SUS FHW MEJ COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, JOSEPH J. BAZILE, JR. AND BARBARA B. MIRE Andrew T. Lilly
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, GSS HOLDINGS LA, LLC, AND VETERANS FOOD MART LLC David J. Halpern Georgia N. Ainsworth SCHLEGEL, J.
Defendants/appellants, GSS Holdings LA, LLC (“GSS”) and Veterans Food
Mart LLC (“VFM”) seek review of the final judgment of November 8, 2024,
which granted plaintiffs/appellees Joseph J. Bazile, Jr. and Barbara B. Mire’s rule
to evict appellants from commercial property located at 1227 Veterans Memorial
Blvd. in Kenner, Louisiana. The plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence at the
hearing on the rule to evict. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court legally
erred by granting the judgment of eviction and reverse the judgment.
Factual Background and Procedural History
On July 17, 2024, Joseph J. Bazile, Jr. and Barbara B. Mire (collectively, the
“Owners”) filed the instant action as a verified rule for eviction in the 24th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Jefferson. The rule sought to evict GSS, VFM, and
all “Occupants of 1227 Veterans Memorial Boulevard,” from the premises at 1227
Veterans Memorial Blvd. A hearing was scheduled for September 3, 2024.
On the morning of the hearing on September 3, 2024, GSS, individually and
on behalf of VFM, filed an answer and exceptions, attaching and adopting by
reference their pleadings filed in a previous action among the parties. The district
court continued the eviction hearing to November 7, 2024.
On November 5, 2024, GSS and VFM filed a verified answer with
affirmative defenses asserting their entitlement to remain in possession of the
property.
During oral argument at the hearing on November 7, 2024, the Owners
referred to exhibits and argued that they were entitled to evict GSS and VFM. But
they did not introduce the exhibits into evidence or present any witness testimony.
The trial court took the matter under advisement following the hearing. The
next day, on November 8, 2024, the trial court entered judgment and granted the
eviction. No written reasons were provided.
25-CA-76 1 Law and Analysis
GSS and VFM argue that the trial court erred in granting the rule for
eviction in favor of the Owners because the Owners did not present any testimony
or evidence at the eviction trial. They contend that the trial court improperly relied
solely on the pleadings and arguments of counsel, which do not constitute
evidence. GSS and VFM argue that the trial court’s decision was a legal error that
tainted the fact-finding process, such that this Court should apply a de novo
standard of review.
The Owners argue that the eviction of GSS, VFM, and other occupants of
the property, which they refer to as the “Holdovers,” was justified due to the
termination of the primary lease and sublease by a federal bankruptcy court order.
The Owners assert that the Holdovers have no legal right to remain on the property
as the leases were terminated during the bankruptcy proceedings of Mountain
Express Oil Company (“MEX”), which was the primary tenant. They assert that
the Holdovers have been operating without a valid lease, violating local and state
laws, and not paying rent since August 2023.
Generally, an appellate court reviews the factual findings of a lower court in
an eviction matter under the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review.
Marlies Margot Cernicek Irrevocable Living Tr. v. Becnel, 22-62 (La. App. 5 Cir.
11/16/22), 353 So.3d 950, 953. However, when legal error interdicts the fact-
finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable and the
appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record.
Gonzalez v. Wricks, 23-298 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/8/24), 389 So.3d 218, 225–26.
In an eviction proceeding against an occupant, the petitioner is required to
make a prima facie showing of title to the property, prove that the defendant is an
occupant as defined in La. C.C.P. art. 4704, and show that the purpose of the
25-CA-76 2 occupancy has ceased. Marlies Margot Cernicek Irrevocable Living Tr., 353
So.3d at 953.
Applying a de novo standard of review of the record, we conclude that the
trial court erred as a matter of law by granting an eviction without taking any
evidence, without the introduction of any exhibits, or without placing any
witnesses under oath. See Kenneth & Allicen Caluda Realty Tr. v. Fifth Bus.
L.L.C., 06-608 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/06), 948 So.2d 1137, 1138 (holding the trial
court erred as a matter of law by granting an eviction without taking any evidence).
The arguments of counsel in appellate briefs and references to facts and issues not
currently before the court are not evidence. Keiger v. NGM Ins. Co., 24-94 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 10/30/24), 398 So.3d 1227, 1229. Because the Owners did not
introduce any evidence in support of their rule for eviction, they did not prove a
prima facie case for eviction, and, therefore, the trial court erred.
Alternatively, the Owners argue that this Court can take judicial notice of the
ownership documents, the recorded lease, and the federal bankruptcy court order,
which support their claim for eviction. Specifically, the Owners argue that this
Court can take judicial notice of ownership documents that are filed with the
Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court, including an Extract of Judgment of Possession
and a lease recorded in the public records. The Owners submit that this Court can
take judicial notice of the Assessor’s website, which also reveals ownership. The
Owners further argue that this Court may take judicial notice of a bankruptcy court
order filed into the MEX bankruptcy case, which can be accessed on a government
website and requires the tenants to immediately turn over the property to the
Owners.
Judicial notice in Louisiana is governed by La. C.E. arts. 201 and 202. La.
C.E. art. 201(B), involving judicial notice of adjudicative facts, provides:
25-CA-76 3 B. Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either:
(1) Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
(2) Capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Many of the documents that the Owners refer to are attached as exhibits to
pleadings that were filed in the district court. In Bufkin v. Motwani, 23-412 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 3/27/24), 385 So.3d 368, 370-71, a commercial lease, a petition,
pleadings from another case, judgments, and a notice of lease termination were
attached to a memorandum in support of exceptions, but were not formally
admitted into evidence. This Court held that these “are not the type of matters of
which the trial court could take judicial notice thereof pursuant to La.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JOSEPH J. BAZILE, JR. AND BARBARA B. NO. 25-CA-76 MIRE FIFTH CIRCUIT VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL GSS HOLDINGS LA, LLC, VETERANS FOOD MART, LLC AND OCCUPANTS AT 1227 STATE OF LOUISIANA VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD IN KENNER, LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 856-247, DIVISION "P" HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING
September 24, 2025
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel
REVERSED SUS FHW MEJ COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, JOSEPH J. BAZILE, JR. AND BARBARA B. MIRE Andrew T. Lilly
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, GSS HOLDINGS LA, LLC, AND VETERANS FOOD MART LLC David J. Halpern Georgia N. Ainsworth SCHLEGEL, J.
Defendants/appellants, GSS Holdings LA, LLC (“GSS”) and Veterans Food
Mart LLC (“VFM”) seek review of the final judgment of November 8, 2024,
which granted plaintiffs/appellees Joseph J. Bazile, Jr. and Barbara B. Mire’s rule
to evict appellants from commercial property located at 1227 Veterans Memorial
Blvd. in Kenner, Louisiana. The plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence at the
hearing on the rule to evict. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court legally
erred by granting the judgment of eviction and reverse the judgment.
Factual Background and Procedural History
On July 17, 2024, Joseph J. Bazile, Jr. and Barbara B. Mire (collectively, the
“Owners”) filed the instant action as a verified rule for eviction in the 24th Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Jefferson. The rule sought to evict GSS, VFM, and
all “Occupants of 1227 Veterans Memorial Boulevard,” from the premises at 1227
Veterans Memorial Blvd. A hearing was scheduled for September 3, 2024.
On the morning of the hearing on September 3, 2024, GSS, individually and
on behalf of VFM, filed an answer and exceptions, attaching and adopting by
reference their pleadings filed in a previous action among the parties. The district
court continued the eviction hearing to November 7, 2024.
On November 5, 2024, GSS and VFM filed a verified answer with
affirmative defenses asserting their entitlement to remain in possession of the
property.
During oral argument at the hearing on November 7, 2024, the Owners
referred to exhibits and argued that they were entitled to evict GSS and VFM. But
they did not introduce the exhibits into evidence or present any witness testimony.
The trial court took the matter under advisement following the hearing. The
next day, on November 8, 2024, the trial court entered judgment and granted the
eviction. No written reasons were provided.
25-CA-76 1 Law and Analysis
GSS and VFM argue that the trial court erred in granting the rule for
eviction in favor of the Owners because the Owners did not present any testimony
or evidence at the eviction trial. They contend that the trial court improperly relied
solely on the pleadings and arguments of counsel, which do not constitute
evidence. GSS and VFM argue that the trial court’s decision was a legal error that
tainted the fact-finding process, such that this Court should apply a de novo
standard of review.
The Owners argue that the eviction of GSS, VFM, and other occupants of
the property, which they refer to as the “Holdovers,” was justified due to the
termination of the primary lease and sublease by a federal bankruptcy court order.
The Owners assert that the Holdovers have no legal right to remain on the property
as the leases were terminated during the bankruptcy proceedings of Mountain
Express Oil Company (“MEX”), which was the primary tenant. They assert that
the Holdovers have been operating without a valid lease, violating local and state
laws, and not paying rent since August 2023.
Generally, an appellate court reviews the factual findings of a lower court in
an eviction matter under the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review.
Marlies Margot Cernicek Irrevocable Living Tr. v. Becnel, 22-62 (La. App. 5 Cir.
11/16/22), 353 So.3d 950, 953. However, when legal error interdicts the fact-
finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable and the
appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record.
Gonzalez v. Wricks, 23-298 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/8/24), 389 So.3d 218, 225–26.
In an eviction proceeding against an occupant, the petitioner is required to
make a prima facie showing of title to the property, prove that the defendant is an
occupant as defined in La. C.C.P. art. 4704, and show that the purpose of the
25-CA-76 2 occupancy has ceased. Marlies Margot Cernicek Irrevocable Living Tr., 353
So.3d at 953.
Applying a de novo standard of review of the record, we conclude that the
trial court erred as a matter of law by granting an eviction without taking any
evidence, without the introduction of any exhibits, or without placing any
witnesses under oath. See Kenneth & Allicen Caluda Realty Tr. v. Fifth Bus.
L.L.C., 06-608 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/06), 948 So.2d 1137, 1138 (holding the trial
court erred as a matter of law by granting an eviction without taking any evidence).
The arguments of counsel in appellate briefs and references to facts and issues not
currently before the court are not evidence. Keiger v. NGM Ins. Co., 24-94 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 10/30/24), 398 So.3d 1227, 1229. Because the Owners did not
introduce any evidence in support of their rule for eviction, they did not prove a
prima facie case for eviction, and, therefore, the trial court erred.
Alternatively, the Owners argue that this Court can take judicial notice of the
ownership documents, the recorded lease, and the federal bankruptcy court order,
which support their claim for eviction. Specifically, the Owners argue that this
Court can take judicial notice of ownership documents that are filed with the
Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court, including an Extract of Judgment of Possession
and a lease recorded in the public records. The Owners submit that this Court can
take judicial notice of the Assessor’s website, which also reveals ownership. The
Owners further argue that this Court may take judicial notice of a bankruptcy court
order filed into the MEX bankruptcy case, which can be accessed on a government
website and requires the tenants to immediately turn over the property to the
Owners.
Judicial notice in Louisiana is governed by La. C.E. arts. 201 and 202. La.
C.E. art. 201(B), involving judicial notice of adjudicative facts, provides:
25-CA-76 3 B. Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either:
(1) Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court; or
(2) Capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Many of the documents that the Owners refer to are attached as exhibits to
pleadings that were filed in the district court. In Bufkin v. Motwani, 23-412 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 3/27/24), 385 So.3d 368, 370-71, a commercial lease, a petition,
pleadings from another case, judgments, and a notice of lease termination were
attached to a memorandum in support of exceptions, but were not formally
admitted into evidence. This Court held that these “are not the type of matters of
which the trial court could take judicial notice thereof pursuant to La. C.E. art. 201
(pertaining to judicial notice of adjudicative facts generally), and La. C.E. art. 202
(pertaining to judicial notice of legal matters).” Bufkin, 385 So.3d at 372. See also
Dufresne v. Dufresne, 10-963 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/10/11), 65 So.3d 749, 753-54
(declaring alleged real estate transactions and values are not matters about which
judicial notice may be taken).
As to the Owners’ contention that this Court may take judicial notice of a
bankruptcy court order, in Bufkin we cited the Louisiana First Circuit case of
Shannon v. Vannoy, 17-1722 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/1/18), 251 So.3d 442, 450, with
approval, which held that “[a]lthough a court may take judicial notice of its own
proceedings, Article 202 does not allow, nor has it ever been interpreted to allow,
courts to take judicial notice of suit records in other courts. Documentation of
other courts’ proceedings must be offered into evidence in the usual manner.”
Bufkin, 385 So.3d at 372 n. 6. See also United Gen. Title Ins. Co. v. Casey Title,
Ltd., 01-600 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/30/01), 800 So.2d 1061, 1065 (finding the Court
25-CA-76 4 could not take judicial notice of proceedings in a district court case that had no
effect except in the specific case in which the rulings were made).
Attachments to memoranda or briefs are not evidence, are not matters of
which judicial notice may be taken, and cannot be considered on appeal unless
they were properly introduced and admitted at trial. Bufkin, 385 So.3d at 372. An
appellate court is precluded from considering evidence that is not part of the
record. United Gen. Title Ins. Co., 800 So.2d at 1065. The bankruptcy court order
is a court order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of Texas, which is not a proper subject of judicial notice in this proceeding.
Similarly, the Jefferson Parish land records and lease, while public, are not
“generally known.” The district court legally erred by granting the judgment of
eviction and considering evidence that was not admitted into the record.
Accordingly, we reverse the November 8, 2024 judgment of the trial court.
REVERSED
25-CA-76 5 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIRST DEPUTY CLERK SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT MELISSA C. LEDET JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY SEPTEMBER 24, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
25-CA-76 E-NOTIFIED 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HON. LEE V. FAULKNER, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE) ANDREW T. LILLY (APPELLEE) GEORGIA N. AINSWORTH (APPELLANT)
MAILED DAVID J. HALPERN (APPELLANT) ATTORNEY AT LAW 909 POYDRAS STREET SUITE 3600 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112