Yvette Alexander and Trudy M. White VS City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge and Lon Norris, Clerk and Judicial Administrator for Baton Rouge City Court
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 2206 YVETTE ALEXANDER AND TRUDY M WHITE VS CITY OF BATON ROUGE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE AND LON NORRIS CLERK JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR JUDGMENT RENDERED NOV 7 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER 532 048 DIVISION M PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE S TATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE KAY BATES JUDGE JILL L CRAFT BATON ROUGE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS APPELLANTS LA YVETTE ALEXANDER AND TRUDY M WHITE MICHAEL L JACKSON ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE MURPHY F BELL JR CITY OF BATON ROUGE PARISH OF MARQUETTE GREENE YOUNG EAST BATON ROUGE BATON ROUGE LA CELIA R CANGELOSI ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE BATON ROUGE LA LON NORRIS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR BATON ROUGE CITY COURT ft Cck ct As tro BEFORE GAIDRY MCDONALD AND MCCLENDON JJ MCDONALD J Following authority Baton request for clarification a of the Baton Rouge court and Parish of East Baton Clerk and s the identity of the appointing Rouge City Court the Parish Attorney for the City of 15 2004 addressed to Baton the on Rouge issued opinion an Rouge City Court Judge authority Judicial Administrator Lon employees he On decided handle to was the court s 24 2005 January by maj ority Attorney personnel Norris The Parish was for classified and unclassified a judges administrative meeting operate the the judges in accord with the Parish court opinion that the Clerk and Judicial Administrator s vested appointing authority at vote to matters October Yvette Alexander and Attorney concluded that the Clerk and Judicial Administrator with on its was appointing authority Thereafter May on 2005 5 Yvette Alexander and Judges Judicial District Court East Baton naming Judicial Administrator Judges Norris as February as plaintiffs M White Laura Davis Rouge City City in his of Baton capacity as Baton Alex Wall and Suzan Ponder by vote of 3 to 2 a appointment The Clerk and Rouge City City Lon Court on and the City of Baton Rouge required the be unanimous authority of the Baton restraining appointment and but that the Plan of Government of plaintiffs also asserted that the Clerk and Judicial the temporary to Rouge Rouge appointed Clerk and Judicial Administrator of the Baton Rouge 27 2002 Court filed suit in the Nineteenth defendants the Norris Baton They alleged that the three other the Parish of East Baton usurped Trudy Parish and Mr Rouge Court the for the order Administrator Rouge City Court Judges and sought enjoining Mr Norris position of Deputy Senior Clerk 2 from making a an in the Criminal and Traffic the Department and also sought to vacate his previous appointment of Deputy Senior Clerk The plaintiffs asked for judges the that the appointing authority for the vote appointment judgment declaring Rouge City Court the declaring Clerk and Judicial Administrator must be appointment of the unanimous Baton a by null and void On May 25 of the and judges 2005 the and Judicial Administrator s judges by further a declaring vote of 3 to 2 job description to Norris Mr s amended the Clerk clarify that he was the court s appointing authority The defendants filed of action no cause exceptions of lack of subject and in the alternative matter jurisdiction peremption They asserted that the judges had clearly delegated their appointing authority to Mr the issue of whether the appointing authority was judges and the district moot or court defendants fuliher contended that meetings therefore there or placed regard vote Court on the record was no Mr Norris lacked was no Baton Rouge City Court was no contractual or In the alternative Meetings the Law days under Law La R S 42 9 judges not were The public a roll call vote to be made cause of action stated in that requirement for a unanimous effective November were not 1 Rules of 2000 The recoverable because statutory authority for attorney fees the defendants asserted that La R S 42 4 1 Open Meetings jurisdiction 3 of En Banc Order defendants also asserted that attorney fees there for was no by the judges citing Rule the matter of the requirement The defendants asserted there for actions subject meetings and there was Norris thus was did apply if the Open any action taken in violation of only voidable and They argued that 3 even must be voided within 60 the suit was filed more than 3 years after the action taken was and thus the action was perempted The defendants asked that the suit be dismissed A hearing on Thereafter the trial the issue of the the court exceptions ruled that there appointing authority held was was was no decided Court when it subscribed to the Parish Attorney that decision s Mr Norris by amending moot and the court had no subject The Trial Court erred in 1 where official no action the Baton by Rouge City legal opinion and ratified thus jurisdiction The the case was plaintiffs following assignments of error declaring as moot occurred and no this dispute superceding legislative enactment ensued 2 The Trial Court erred in determining the dispositive issue of who is the appointing authority at Baton Rouge City Court outside the ambit of a full and complete trial on declaratory relief especially where one of the plaintiffs was not even in town yet within the confmes of an e xception 3 The Trial Court erred in afford any weight or allow introduction of the Guillot memorandum advising Norris to back date and alter City Parish documents to be submitted refusing to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission so that the as said appointment would not look so white memorandum was clearly relevant as the imprimatur for this litigation as well as serving as a clear exception to the to the Michelli mootness 4 and further 5 doctrine The Trial Court erred in by refusing to on the merits and xceptions an opportunity claims entirely e 6 The Trial COUli erred in costs when they appear to issue injunctive relief determine the issue of contempt The Trial Court erred in trial refusing failing to afford the plaintiffs a full in response to the defendants to amend prior to dismissal of their assessing the plaintiff Judges with in this litigation in their official capacity 4 2005 justiciable issue because job description matter that judgment and make the appealing s 17 November on are ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO In its written reasons for judgment the trial 1 court found This Court finds that Rule 3 of En Banc Order Rules of Court Baton Rouge City Court effective November 1 2000 clearly states that a majority of the judges must decide how to The rule provides in effectively operate the City Court is necessary for administrative policy reasons pertinent part it coordinate and operate the divisions as one unified court the maximum extent possible Accordingly except as to to to decisions and judgments of each judge in cases specifically assigned to him or in other litigious matters submitted to him for decision as part of the specific duties assigned to him by these rules the decision and judgment of a majority of the judges then actively pursuing their duties shall be necessary to administer the affairs of this On 24 court 2005 the City Court through a valid majority vote subscribed to the Parish Attorney s legal opinion and effectively vested Lon Norris with the appointing authority of the City Court as a matter of law Subsequently on May 24 2005 after this suit was filed the City Court judges through a valid majority vote amended Lon Norris job description to clarify that he was their appointing authority As the minutes reflect Judge Alexander recognized that the majority vote would constitute the City Court s delegation of that authority to Norris In addition Judge White recognized that the passage of January the motion would obviate the need for this Court issue of appointing authority There is to decide the justiciable issue for this Court to decide The issue of appointing authority was decided by the City Court when they subscribed to the Parish Attorney s legal opinion and then ratified that decision by amending Lon Norris job In finding that this exceptions need not description defendants A case is no moot when useful purpose and give there is matter That is Cat s no subject jurisdiction Meow 98 0601 v once expired rendered the remainder of judgment or decree practical relief or effect If the on which the judgment of the established may abate if the 720 So 2d 1186 challenged mootness may moot be addressed of New Orleans La 10 20 98 When the or City no a issue is article 5 is case court case moot can then operate becomes Through Department moot of Finance 1193 statute result if the can serve no or change ordinance has been amended corrects or cures the condition the claim complained of or fully satisfies legislation new was the controversy such and a case any there is longer However not moot the applies Cat s The in no an resolve the case or controversy is on the would be matter legislative changes to exception an the determine the whether or not nature then the However Therefore if although the controversy is parties Cat of the relief sought by the parties in addition ordinances taxes case refund of taxes namely that the form are of prospective relief claims a a for in the law may not moot the collateral consequences to one moot of the declaratory judgment unconstitutional and were was a The amusement sought tax a that the refund of the ordinances were filed and the amendment would have rendered except for the collateral consequence of the request for moot In this in subject of a dispute has become plaintiffs sought already paid amended after the suit the the primary to change a Thus if a case in the law may lead to dismissal of change not moot if there Meow the s amusement tax amusement doctrine Meow 720 So 2d at 1196 s In Cat address impermissible an to the mootness in the law moots change a compensatory relief are made then case court to Meow 720 So 2d at 1194 declaratory judgment case In moot challenged legislation plaintiff s petition sought solely prospective relief the questions raised by actual controversy for the controversy if court must concluding to find that the judicial adjudication advisory opinion will specifically intended court may a Further if it is concluded that the paid prior case the the amendment plaintiffs Judges answerable for money Environmental to assert Alexander damages Action a in that there and a Network 6 White are collateral consequences could be held personally discrimination suit citing Louisiana v Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and J Manoco 1412 La Inc La 1 Cir 9 26 03 App State of Louisiana v 1 Cir 12 28 99 App 3 24 00 02 2377 Control Board Gaming 756 So 2d 430 857 So 2d 541 writ denied 00 0248 La 758 So 2d 155 In Louisiana appealed a Louisiana Action Environmental quality permit issued Department judicial review incorporated the terms Corporation then filed that the Part 70 review of the amended The doctrine the motion permit to to C FR issuance made moot the was an exception plaintiffs health and welfare articles the case this court concerning the was mootness statutes whether the doctrine to doctrine individual found that there appeared were to are case 7 apply This mootness compounds court into noted that amended to was to Part 70 case does or questionable 875 So 2d at 544 remedies available 857 So 2d at 545 argument of the plaintiffs that there This and that it permits the to already violated thus the permit thus the adoption of the leave unresolved issues present were further threatened and ordinances applied Part 70 that challenged permit where health standards to 70 for judicial petition the air in exception Part permit collateral consequences because the area petition for petition for judicial review the release of extra amounts of volatile an the quality permit Georgia Pacific dismiss the plaintiffs asserted that there due 40 to an of Environmental Department allegedly legalized expired plaintiffs Corporation by While the Quality the Louisiana of the amended air a Pacific Georgia of Environmental pending was to Quality issued another permit pursuant asserting Network judgment dismissing their petition for judicial review of amended air the 98 the In any plaintiffs permit did not not support the unresolved collateral issues in the In J Manoco Inc Gaming Control Board found that the moot because in poker a s truck a stop sought review of the Louisiana revocation of its video This appeal of the revocation of the video gaming license although East Baton issue of a five year court was not Rouge Parish subsequently rejected video statewide referendum after the suit outstanding gaming license was filed there was still the prohibition of the truck stop obtaining gaming license following the revocation of its video gaming license any 756 So 2d at 434 In the present suit the plaintiffs the form of declaratory judgment a sought within this lawsuit suit is and moot jurisdiction is personally liable in consequence in the Courts are not a The and there is later suit for money pennitted to issue not Bar Admissions rei Webb compensatory relief no judgment finding that the lacked damages is mere subject not speculation advisory opinions based Louisiana occur a on matter collateral their part contingency on a Supreme Court Committee Roberts 00 2517 La 2 21 01 v relief in argument that they could be held present suit but rather ex court court therefore plaintiffs which mayor may 726 seeking only prospective Thus the trial that the trial correct are 779 on 2d So 728 Because subject matter error numbers we find that the jurisdiction case over 2 3 4 and 5 is is moot the suit and that the trial consideration of court had no assignments of pretermitted ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO 6 In this assignment of error the plaintiffs assert that the trial erred in assessing them with costs when they appear in this official capacity lawsuit and the The judges took a formal vote on majority voted against filing it Thus 8 court litigation in their whether to file this we conclude that the two judges official court s who filed suit did capacities discretion for the For the foregoing suit for lack of with Thus subject we so in their individual find it was court to cast reasons matter appropriate capacities court s AFFIRMED 9 costs in this matter judgment dismissing the jurisdiction is affirmed costs in their and within the district the plaintiffs with the district not Plaintiffs are cast
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
