Creig and Debbie Menard On Behalf of Their Minor Son, Giles Menard VS Louisiana High School Athletic Association
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 CA 0800 CREIG AND DEBBIE MENARD INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR SON GILES MENARD VERSUS LOUISIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Judgment Rendered Appealed DEe 2 3 2009 from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No 571 077 The Honorable William A Morvant John A Hernandez III Lafayette Louisiana Judge Presiding Counsel for Plaintiffs Creig individually and their minor Bradley Lewis Bogalusa Louisiana R Appellants and Debbie Menard son on behalf of Giles Menard Counsel for Defendant Louisiana High Appellee School Athletic Association Inc BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON JJ GAIDRY J The parents of their high for injunctive subject matter petition of lack of a school athlete relief and jurisdiction School Athletic Association Inc part as amend the moot amended for the reasons appeal damages on judgment dismissing exception the peremptory High of the defendant the Louisiana We dismiss the the LHSAA in part judgment a and affirm the appeal in judgment as stated below FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Giles Menard At the time and at a Menard and Debbie Menard plaintiffs Creig student transferred they instituted this action Giles High 17 years old was 2008 Giles after School he played varsity previously While attending Abbeville High School in Vermilion Parish Abbeville parents of Lafayette High School in Lafayette Louisiana Lafayette High School in January to the are attending football until he was injured in November 2007 After Giles began determination of his February of attend eligibility to Lafayette High School play residence under its rules transfer rule under its to a football for that school 2008 the LHSAA ruled that there 25 plaintiffs ineligible to play not was and that a request for was football for Parish seeking against the and a litigation by filing was Lafayette High School during his initial year of attendance which happened to be his senior Plaintiffs instituted this change Giles accordingly On made bona fide a a petition in year Lafayette temporary restraining order and further injunctive relief LHSAA In response peremptory exceptions Lafayette Parish signed a On the LHSAA filed September consent 11 declinatory dilatory 2008 the trial judgment sustaining 2 the court in declinatory exception on East Baton the objection improper and venue transferring the the amending petition change in adding to injunctive relief was The LHSAA damages in the granted allowing Giles to play Lafayette High football was withdrawn of lack of objection injunctive event that no during his senior heard were October 21 2008 on Noting that the objection of insufficiency of service of dilatory exception for School remaining exceptions s supplemental and a reiterating their claim alternate claim for an filed plaintiffs venue October 14 2008 on relief and the action Rouge Parish Following year at of subject action under the peremptory process of the the LHSAA the trial by matter and dismissed jurisdiction sustained court plaintiffs exception but pretermitted determination of the remaining objections under the dilatory and peremptory exceptions Plaintiffs objection appeal contending of lack of that the trial matter subject court erred in the sustaining asserted in the LHSAA jurisdiction s peremptory exception DISCUSSION Injunctive Relief It is undisputed by the parties that Giles ended and that he has graduated from La High Sch So 2d 1081 injunctive appeal 1087 the therefore 04 0937 p 6 n When an La to be appeal will be dismissed as moot Group act 00 0065 p 5 writ denied 01 0594 La moot App La 3 30 01 3 us See Johansen 1st Cir 6 29 05 appeal is taken from sought relief and the Shareholder 23 Athletic Ass are senior academic year has school On the record before high plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief s an order v 916 denying enjoined is accomplished pending App Silliman Private Sch 1 st Cir 16 2 788 So 2d 1194 01 Corp v 789 So 2d 20 Accordingly we dismiss Thus in part plaintiffs appeal we matter extent claims for dismissing plaintiffs remaining subject the that it seeks examine the merits of the trial to proceed to injunctive relief court judgment s based upon lack of damages jurisdiction Subject Matter Jurisdiction Jurisdiction a court to has void subject La C C P jurisdiction over particular a art 2 the class of actions in amount matter of the action proceedings or dispute authority of the value of or or court a which proceeding the substance of the transfer rule the LHSAA challenge of the rule interpretation as applied conclusion under the rule that Giles result of a bona fide issues which we clearly relate to noted in Johansen LHSAA s actions enforcing its state Sports Act 916 So 2d at 1085 n the 12 p 36 D S C are clearly to is 916 S 220501 S 220526 et seq a S the and to Id 04 0937 in but did at p 3 pertinent part jurisdiction not part of the amateur over that participation is restricted to a specific class of athletes such as high school students 4 in 1090 at 220526 sports organization that conducts if correct conducted under color provides shall have exclusive the athletes 2d So of student of 36 V S C not voluntary association a not and its was was s determine those also made brief reference applicability competition competition amateur we 36 V S C An amateur athletic at court jurisdiction the internal affairs of 04 0937 Lafayette The trial matter regulations internal address residence in investigating eligibility In Johansen law specifically Amateur own in s facts underlying the to in residence change concluding that it lacked subject of power and judgment rendered by A subject legal La C C P art 3 Plaintiffs As is the matter object of the demand the right asserted no the hear and determine based upon the the over n 1 We find relating Giles to eligibility s the transfer rule including Athletic Fed 244 n 3d F However subject matter claims for La High Niles Slaney court determine the n on reasons the objection similar judgment we and Lee a cause to of lack of viability and merits of plaintiffs those articulated by the trial exception had merit of action on our own s court objection as of no However for on cause for reasons of action in notice the failure authorized exception and sustain the peremptory 5th Cir it dismissed those in its oral we v See also 1029 30 jurisdiction Accordingly motion as See Chabert 1975 La F 2d 1027 matter subject us v conclusion that it lacked erred insofar court conclude that the LHSAA its peremptory 927 B s 323 So 2d 774 777 78 respect the trial matter subject Internat l Amateur v damages for deprivation of constitutional rights Sch Athletic Ass rules s D Ct Haw 2004 1255 59 disagree with the trial to of court 7th Cir 2001 Supp 2d 1252 jurisdiction In that claims See 594 96 a and enforcement of the interpretation University lnterscholastic League 715 v 1983 state we the trial deprived regulations 580 Taekwondo Union 331 F football under the LHSAA play and internal rules and s to S 220526 36 V S C damages under Louisiana law claims for the merits jurisdiction regarding LHSAA by the LHSAA that preempt plaintiffs to serves contended as La C C P by that basis as to art explained below Due Process To existence affected 2396 p prevail of on some by state 9 La their due process claim property action App circumstances and for or liberty interest Brennan v Bd purposes 5 show the which has been adversely of Trustees for 1st Cir 3 27 97 some must plaintiffs a 691 Univ So 2d 324 ofLa Sys 330 private organization or In 95 some association and orgamzmg may be considered competition Tenn Secondary L Ed 2d 807 school regulating public and La Sch 396 F 2d 224 227 531 U S n High Sch due process than an abstract need entitlement Board protection or 2709 33 L Ed 2d 548 unilateral a a Ass n injury at 430 F 2d 1155 Athletic Ass protection participating at in the a person must have more a not v Id of it insulate La claim of legitimate a The due citizen from High Sch Athletic v La High Sch the squarely plaintiff parents challenged the rejecting court single year a rather than challenge held that a outside the as student interest s of interscholastic athletics amounts to a mere constitutionally protected claim of entitlement 159 60 In their and will petition plaintiffs alleged probably college should obtaining a protected by be awarded he an be allowed that athletic Giles is play football to simply does not due process but rather opportunity Johansen 04 0937 constitute a 6 upon a speculative at p 8 an scholarship college athletic scholarship based school athletics or In v To In Walsh 5th Cir 1970 transfer rule s of due process expectation Id 1157 58 Mitchell state 616 F 2d 152 5th Cir 1980 n the LHSAA in the hands of the to 1972 expectation process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does every Augustine High of Regents of State Colleges He must have desire for it it rather than to St 148 property interest subject a property interest protected by due process a n v S Ct 924 v 5th Cir 1968 Roth 408 U S 564 577 92 S Ct 2701 have 121 288 Athletic Ass State law defines what constitutes procedural including athletic See Brentwood Acad state actor a Sch Athletic Ass 2001 activities outstanding to athlete play football The possibility participation property interest and uncertain 916 So 2d at 1088 in or in of high right expectation Marino v 220 So 2d 802 Waters Sch Athletic Ass 242 So 2d 19 28 La n Sch Athletic Ass High App 1st Cir 1969 La 806 Inc n v Sanders App 3rd Cir Carlberg 694 1970 N E 2d 222 La v High See also Ind 241 n Ind 26 1997 The United States fundamental Nation Washington and tradition justice Id 04 0937 See Johansen Carlberg 694 N E plaintiffs right to participate See Johansen 04 0937 has no liberty plaintiffs were or cannot deprived were 9 at p at allegations of art at p prevail we son had Gaming App Ass 1 st Cir n on procedural rise to liberty Glucksberg 3 n 1088 citing or substantive due sports regulated by the LHSAA Because a student athlete the merits of their claim that either Giles by reason Thus Inc v 02 no cure plaintiffs 9 La Riverboat 838 So 2d 5 amendment not state 916 So 2d 7 to 9 to 691 the factual at a entitled under La C C P violation of due process 1088 Gaming Comm 18 they this fundamental flaw in that are petition to attempt to 04 0937 at p 95 2396 at p See Brennan could or being declared ineligible of his held in Johansen of action 11 9 no 9 916 So 2d at 1088 plaintiffs petition 934 to amend their See Johansen at 138 property interest in participating in interscholastic athletics As purported cause described in in interscholastic of due process 330 as 916 So 2d 3 n not neither essential that so sacrificed compete within the LHSAA system So 2d 117 S Ct 2258 2268 at 242 In summary process they in this substantive due process protected by rights and liberties would exist if those deeply rooted objectively of nature in interscholastic athletics does Participation 1997 the level of fundamental nor and are 521 U S 702 720 21 Glucksberg v L Ed 2d 772 and liberties which rights history s Supreme Court has clarified the n and American Int l 00 2864 p 17 La Equal Protection of the Law The Fourteenth Amendment of the U S Constitution and La Const art I and require v 3 that all persons provide that persons are entitled to situated receive like similarly of the federal and equal protection provisions absolute equality state 29 30 But the constitutions do precisely equal advantages or law Whitnell treatment 686 So 2d 23 Silverman 95 0112 pp 9 10 La 12 6 96 require equal protection of the not McCormick v Hunt 328 So 2d 140 142 La 1976 The guarantees constitutions differ and therefore whether each has been violated 2985 p 17 La fundamental or religion or political Progressive Sec right affiliation is another classification is alleged subject as to only if proven be to Progressive Sec In Genusa 4th Cir 1980 838 So 2d at 17 not Ins Co v as such birth age sex the minimal Such a rationally related or lowest level of American Int l to 97 where no as race culture the basis for discrimination the under the guarantees of both constitutions 15 class as Foster v However suspect any other enumerated class such nor 00 2864 at p or Co Ins 685 86 711 So 2d 675 4 23 98 state usually require separate analysis express constitutional or under the federal and equal protection of use of scrutiny Gaming Ass n classification is unconstitutional to any legitimate state interest 97 2985 at pp 18 19 711 So 2d at 686 Holy Cross College Inc the purpose of the transfer rule 389 So 2d 908 was 909 La App described The purpose of the transfer rule is prophylactic in nature without it high schools would be free to recruit athletes with a laissez faire attitude and programs It prevents protects the integrity transgressions by of athletic unscrupulous participants As we that did in Johansen t he good we agree with the observation of the court in Genusa intent of the rule is evident 8 Id The classification made by the transfer rule and the bona fide inherently suspect and does So 2d at 779 As encroach upon not 04 0937 at p right See Johansen of residence rule is change a any factual basis for See American Int l Our review of the fundamental constitutional 10 916 So 2d at 1089 and Chabert 323 the LHSAA a violation of federal Gaming Ass the record and the pleadings Indeed equal protection rights 16 17 parties argument relating any substantive process We conclude objection of no See cause in Johnson g 965 So 2d 866 6 8 07 So 2d 507 We exception as to 872 06 2024 State n 2 objection of the equal does as no cause protection 11 no n 2 La s cannot judgment as art 1 st Cir 119 07 La due of the grounds App forth to opposed under La C C P 07 1784 court not set protection rights petition p writ denied accordingly affirm the trial sustain the as we equal protection amendment of the v briefs discloses considered discretion that the our by 838 So 2d at 17 appeal of action for violation of equal be removed e to forth assertion of violation of brief on plaintiffs to set equal protection rights state or 00 2864 at pp n fails plaintiffs petition possible grounds supporting plaintiffs conclusory 934 arbitrary or 80 emphasized by conceivably not 967 amended of action raised in the peremptory claim DECREE The appeal of the plaintiffs appellants Creig Menard is dismissed in part as moot The judgment of the trial sustained the objection of lack of relief claims for and to the claims for subject matter law jurisdiction relating to enforcement of the internal rules the Louisiana High School Athletic Association 9 injunctive is affirmed in part insofar court damages under Louisiana interpretation appellee with regard Menard and Debbie of the as it plaintiffs substance of the defendant The judgment is amended in part to sustain the peremptory exception as to objection the of plaintiffs no to the plaintiffs APPEAL AFFIRMED IN of action of the claims and as of this appeal are remaining amended the judgment of dismissal is affirmed assessed cause All costs appellants DISMISSED PART IN PART AS AND AMENDED IN MOTION AND AS AMENDED AFFIRMED 10 MOOT PART JUDGMENT ON COURT S
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.
