Paulette Cooper Versus City of Kenner
Opinion
PAULETTE COOPER NO. 19-CA-383 VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT CITY OF KENNER COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE CITY OF KENNER, CIVIL SERVICE BOARD PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 18-1, DAVID RICHARDSON, CHAIRMAN PRESIDING
October 30, 2019
PER CURIAM
Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Jude G. Gravois, and Robert A. Chaisson
MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED FHW JGG RAC
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, PAULETTE COOPER Clement P. Donelon
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, CITY OF KENNER C. A. Fleming, III
WICKER, J.
In her motion to dismiss this appeal, appellee Paulette Cooper (“Cooper”)
argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Kenner Civil Service Board (the “Board”) brought by Appellant, the City of Kenner (“Kenner”). Resolving that this Court is properly possessed with jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Board, Cooper’s motion to dismiss is denied.
According to Cooper, Section 8.04 of Kenner’s Home Rule Charter (the “Charter”) requires that an appeal from a decision of the Board must be filed in “the court of original and unlimited jurisdiction in civil suits for the Parish of Jefferson,” which is the 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. The City of Kenner, however, argues in opposition that appellate jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by the Louisiana Constitution, which controls over competing local laws and the Kenner Civil Service Rules.
This Court has previously reviewed decisions of the Board, noting that appellate jurisdiction was provided by Article 10, Section 12 of the Louisiana Constitution and the Kenner Civil Service Rules. See Metzler v. City of Kenner, 15-601 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/16/16), 194 So.3d 634, 637 & n.1. This Court has never been faced with the arguments Cooper now makes challenging its jurisdiction, namely, (1) that the Kenner Civil Service Rules are inapplicable and superseded by the mandates of the Charter, and (2) the City of Kenner’s civil service system is not subject to the provisions of Article 10 of the Louisiana Constitution because the City’s population has never exceeded four hundred thousand.1 We find that both arguments are without merit and reaffirm that this Court has jurisdiction as stated in Metzler v. City of Kenner. Id.
1 See La. Const. Art. 10, § 1(B).
Section 2.14(F) of the Kenner Civil Service Rules provides:
Decisions of the Board shall be subject to review on any question of law or fact upon petition for review to the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
(1) An application for appeal from a decision of the Board shall be effectuated in accord with the Uniform Rules – Courts of Appeal, Rule 3, 3-1, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, The Special Appeals, Administrative Cases, said rules hereby being adopted, and by reference made part hereof.
The language of Section 2.14 mirrors the language of La. Const. Art. 10 § 12(B), which provides that “[t]he decision of a [city] commission shall be subject to review on any question of law or fact upon appeal to the court of appeal wherein the commission is located, upon application filed with the commission within thirty calendar days after its decision becomes final.” Home Rule Charter vs. Civil Service Rules Cooper contends that the Kenner Civil Service Rules are inapplicable for two reasons. First, she claims that the Rules “apparently, were never adopted” by Kenner’s electors or city council. However, the Charter, which establishes the City Civil Service System, provides that Civil Service Rules “shall become effective upon approval by the Civil Service Board, and shall have the full force of law.” Home Rule Charter, City of Kenner, Section 8.03(A)(3). The Rules at issue are currently in use by the Board, and there is no reason to believe the Board has not approved them. Second, Cooper points out that the Charter clearly establishes that, “[t]he provisions of this Section shall prevail if conflicts are found between this Section and other laws of the City of Kenner.” Home Rule Charter, City of Kenner, Section 8.04(E). Obviously, this provision suggests that the 24th Judicial District Court is the proper court for filing an appeal from a Board decision as the Charter provision would prevail over the Civil Service Rule requiring that the appeal be lodged with the Fifth Circuit. Thus, Cooper’s assertion requires this Court to
determine whether the provisions of a municipality’s home rule charter can confer appellate jurisdiction on a district court.2 The Louisiana Supreme Court has held:
[A] court’s review of an administrative tribunal’s action is considered functionally to be an exercise of its appellate review jurisdiction. 3
Therefore, for the purpose of judicial review of administrative action, the district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having only such appellate jurisdiction to review administrative actions as is provided by law or constitutionally required.
Consequently, a litigant seeking judicial review of administrative action in a district court must establish that there is a statute which gives subject matter jurisdiction to that court. (Citations omitted)
Loop, Inc. v. Collector of Revenue, 523 So.2d 201, 202–03 (La. 1987); La. Const. Art. V, § 16(B); see Quatrevingt v. State through Landry, 17-0884 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/8/18), 242 So.3d 625, 636, writ denied, 18-0391 (La. 4/27/18), 239 So.3d 837.
“Local government subdivisions,” meaning municipalities and parishes,4 may not adopt regulations or ordinances which contravene general state law or are inconsistent with the Louisiana Constitution. See La. Const. Art. 6, §§ 4, 5, 7, 9; City of New Orleans v. Board of Com’rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 93-0690 (La. 7/5/94), 640 So.2d 237. The prohibition generally applies to home rule charters adopted by local governmental subdivisions under La. Const. Art. 6, § 5. And while there is some additional power retained by municipalities with home rule charters that existed prior to the adoption of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, those home rule charters may only allow for exercise of authority that is consistent with
2 In 2010, the First Circuit left open the question of “whether, in the absence of a statute enacted by the Louisiana legislature, the provisions of a home rule charter or plan of government passed by a municipal entity can confer appellate jurisdiction on a district court.” City of Baton Rouge v. Bethley, 09-1840 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10) 68 So.3d 535, 539. In that case, the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge appealed a decision of the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge affirming a decision of the Personnel Board for the City/Parish. Id. at 535. The First Circuit determined that no constitutional or statutory authority existed conferring appellate jurisdiction on the 19th JDC. Id. at 538. La. Const. Art. 5, § 12 did not apply because the case did not involve an appeal from a city civil service commission, otherwise original appellate jurisdiction would have been vested in the courts of appeal. Id. at 539. 3 As opposed to a view prior to the adoption of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution that such review could be considered an exercise of a district court’s original jurisdiction. See Loop, Inc., 523 So.2d at 203 n.1. 4 La. Const. Art. 6, § 44
the 1974 Constitution. La. Const. Art. 6, § 4 states, “Except as inconsistent with this constitution, each local governmental subdivision which has adopted such a home rule charter or plan of government shall retain the powers, functions, and duties in effect when this constitution is adopted.” (Emphasis added).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Paulette Cooper Versus City of Kenner (Paulette Cooper Versus City of Kenner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.