The State of Louisiana v. the Red River Waterway Commission

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: June 30, 2021
• Docket: CA-0021-0346
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 21-346

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.

VERSUS

RED RIVER WATERWAY COMMISSION, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF NATCHITOCHES, NO. 90,597B HONORABLE LALA BRITTAIN SYLVESTER, DISTRICT JUDGE

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy H. Ezell and Jonathan W. Perry, Judges.

MOTION FOR SPECIAL SETTING DENIED; EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION GRANTED. Jeff Landry Attorney General Carey Thompson Jones Alexander T. Reinboth Assistant Attorneys General Post Office Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 326-6000 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: State of Louisiana

Billy Joe Harrington District Attorney, Tenth Judicial District Court J. Chris Guillet Assistant District Attorney Post Office Box 838 Natchitoches, LA 71458-0838 (318) 357-2214 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: State of Louisiana

Gregory Brian Upton Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell Post Office Box 6118 Alexandria, LA 71307-6118 (318) 445-6471 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Red River Waterway Commission

Mark Alexander Begnaud Post Office Box 1369 Natchitoches, La 71458 (318) 352-6495 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Red River Waterway Commission

Matthew Ferdinand Block John C. Walsh Office of the Governor PO Box 94004 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (225) 342-7015 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: John Bel Edwards, Governor, State of Louisiana Otis Edwin Dunahoe, Jr. Dunahoe Law Firm Post Office Box 607 Natchitoches, LA 71458-0607 (318) 352-1999 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Ronald Lattier PICKETT, Judge.

The appellant, State of Louisiana, represented herein by the Attorney

General and the District Attorney for the Tenth Judicial District, filed a filed a

Motion for Special Setting and Expedited Consideration. The appellees, John Bel

Edwards in his capacity as Governor of the State of Louisiana, and Ronald Lattier,

filed an opposition to the motion. For the reasons set forth herein, we deny the

motion for a special setting and grant the motion for expedited consideration.

The instant case arises out of a dispute regarding the legality of Governor

John Bel Edwards’ appointment of Ronald Lattier as the Caddo Parish Member of

the Red River Waterway Commission. The term of Mr. Lattier’s appointment

expires on July 1, 2021.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the trial court decided this

case on briefs, without a trial, and upon stipulated facts and exhibits. On April 29,

2021, the trial court rendered Final Judgment in this matter, denying the state’s

petition. Notice of judgment was mailed to the parties on April 30, 2021. The

state filed a Motion for Devolutive Appeal and Expedited Return date on May 5,

2021, and the trial court set a return date of June 5, 2021. The state asserts that two

legal issues for this court to consider are 1) whether the appointment of Mr. Lattier

violated La.R.S. 34:2303, and if so, 2) whether Mr. Lattier should be excluded

from office pursuant to the Intrusion into Office Act, La.R.S. 42:71-87.

The state argues that pursuant to La.R.S. 42:85, the appeal of an action

brought under the Intrusion into Office Act shall be heard by preference. Further,

the state maintains that a court of appeal may grant a special assignment “in any

case where the state or any subdivision thereof is a party, or in any matter

impressed with the public interest, or in any case where the interest of justice clearly requires an immediate or special hearing.” Uniform Rules—Courts of

Appeal, Rule 2-11.2. Accordingly, the state requests a special setting for this

matter and an expedited briefing schedule due to the identities of the parties in this

case. See St. Tammany Par. Council v. Brown, 443 So.2d 1 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1983).

The state also asserts that a special setting and expedited consideration of

this appeal is warranted as this case presents a “matter impressed with the public

interest” where the state disputes the validity of an appointment to the Red River

Waterway Commission, a public body responsible for overseeing operation and

maintenance of a navigable waterway system that reaches seven parishes in central

and northern Louisiana. See La.R.S. 34:2301 and 2302. Further, the state

contends that justice requires expedited resolution of this case due to the

approaching expiration of Mr. Lattier’s term in office. Upon the expiration of his

term, Governor Edwards will appoint a new Caddo Parish Member of the Red

River Waterway Commission pursuant to the same statute the state alleged was

violated in the appointment of Mr. Lattier. Due to the July 1, 2021 expiration of

Mr. Lattier’s current term, the state seeks a resolution of this appeal no later than

June 30, 2021.

Governor Edwards and Mr. Lattier oppose the state’s request for a special

setting and expedited briefing schedule, arguing that it is unwarranted in this case.

The relief sought by the state—namely, the removal of Mr. Lattier from office—

will have no practical effect in furtherance of the public interest. Governor

Edwards and Mr. Lattier add that the June 2021 meeting of the Red River

Waterway Commision was held on June 16, 2021, and they reiterate that Mr.

Lattier’s current term, the subject of the instant litigation, expires on July 1, 2021.

Since the June meeting has already been held and Mr. Lattier’s term is set to expire 2 imminently, Governor Edwards and Mr. Lattier urge there is no need for a swift

resolution of this case. Governor Edwards and Mr. Lattier conclude that the state’s

requested relief, were it afforded them, could only have minimal effect on the

public interest.

We note that La.R.S. 42:85 pertains to appeals to the supreme court and does

not direct this court to hear this matter by preference. Therefore, we find La.R.S.

42:85 is inapplicable to the instant case.

Since Mr. Lattier’s term is ending July 1, 2021, we do not agree with the

urgency in the state’s request for a special setting for this matter. The case,

however, will be expedited and placed on the next available docket. Accordingly,

we deny the state’s Motion for Special Setting.

MOTION FOR SPECIAL SETTING DENIED; EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION GRANTED.

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