Sterling Doucette, David Nixon, and Leon Richard v. Eastover Property Owners' Association, Inc. and Eastover Neighborhood Improvement and Security District

Opinion

STERLING DOUCETTE, * NO. 2024-CA-0585 DAVID NIXON, AND LEON RICHARD * COURT OF APPEAL

VERSUS * FOURTH CIRCUIT

EASTOVER PROPERTY * STATE OF LOUISIANA OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. AND EASTOVER ******* NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT AND SECURITY DISTRICT

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2023-13803, DIVISION “E” Honorable Omar Mason, Judge ****** JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS ****** (Court composed of Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Rachael D. Johnson)

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

Shermin S. Khan THE KHAN LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 2714 Canal St. Suite 300 New Orleans, LA 70119

Gavin M. Richard THE LAW OFFICE OF GAVIN M. RICHARD, L.L.C. 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2900 New Orleans, LA 70163

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Nancy A. Cundiff Steven S. Stastny Caroline J. Mowrey GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE LIMITED REHEARING GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; ORIGINAL OPINION AFFIRMED JUNE 17, 2025 SCJ JCL RDJ

We grant appellees’, Eastover Property Owners Association, Inc. (“EPOA”)

and Eastover Neighborhood Improvement and Security District (“ENISD”),

application for rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing their arguments that

this Court erred in finding that they did not produce all the records requested by the

plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs prevailed in their request for public records from

ENISD, and the trial court did not consider the plaintiffs’ claim under La. R.S.

44:35(E)(1).

Subsequent to this Court’s May 22, 2025 decision, the appellees filed an

application for rehearing, seeking reconsideration of our decision. First, the

appellees argue that they produced all requested records. We disagree. On April

11, 2023, plaintiffs requested access of various records. Thereafter, in October 16,

2023, the plaintiffs corresponded with the defendants explaining that there were

outstanding requests. Thereafter, on December 28, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a

petition for writ of mandamus to compel production of the outstanding requests.

1 The appellees argument that examination of the hearing transcript reveals that all

requested documents were produced is misplaced. The March 18, 2024 hearing

transcript reveals that the trial court navigated through categories of items that

were produced and those that were outstanding.

Next, the appellees contend that the plaintiffs did not prevail because the

appellees agreed to allow inspection and production of any and all requested

documents that were not already produced to the plaintiffs to conserve judicial

resources. The appellees further contend that the plaintiffs did not prevail in their

suit against ENISD. However, the appellees fail to consider that the trial court

denied ENISD’s peremptory exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action

for lack of timeliness. As such, the plaintiffs’ mandamus claims against ENISD

proceeded. Moreover, the trial court granted in part the plaintiffs’ writ of

mandamus and ordered that the defendants make particular items available to the

plaintiffs for inspection and photocopying.

Lastly, the appellees assert that the trial court addressed civil penalties. As

provided in our earlier opinion, the March 18, 2024 transcript reveals that there

was no consideration of the plaintiffs’ claim under La. R.S. 44:35. Moreover, the

May 31, 2024 judgment reveals that the trial court deferred ruling on attorney’s

fees and costs. Therefore, this argument is without merit.

For these reasons, we grant a limited rehearing, deny relief, and affirm our

original opinion. LIMITED REHEARING GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; ORIGINAL OPINION AFFIRMED