Robert and Jessica Boudreaux, Tradewinds Offshore Services, Inc. d/b/a RB Enterprises VS Jerry Larpenter, Terrebonne Parish Sheriff, Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government and Eugene Trahan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2011 CA 0410 ROBERT AND JESSICA BOUDREAUX TRADEWINDS OFFSHORE SERVICES INC d b a RB ENTERPRISES VERSUS JERRY LARPENTER TERREBONNE PARISH SHERIFF TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT AND EUGENE TRAHAN On Appeal from the 32nd Judicial District Court Honorable lire Parish of Terrebonne Louisiana Docket No 134 Division D 350 David W Arceneaux Judge Presiding Stanwood R Duval Attorneys for C Berwick Duval II Plaintiffs Appellants Duval Funderburk Sundbery Robert and Jessica Boudreaux and Lovell Watkins Tradewinds Offshore Services Inc Houma LA dba RB Enterprises Gregory J Schwab Houma LA Attorney for Defendant Appellee Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government BEFORE CARTER C PARRO AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ J Judgment rendered rJUN 1 PARRO J The plaintiffs Robert Boudreaux Jessica Boudreaux and Tradewinds Offshore Services Inc d ba RB Enterprises Tradewinds appeal the judgment of the trial court which dismissed all claims against the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government TPCG with prejudice For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Robert and Jessica Boudreaux are married and live at 4673 Bayouside Drive in Chauvin Louisiana which is also the location of Tradewinds the familyowned business at issue in this matter The Boudreauxs purchased the initial tract of land in 1977 and by around 1995 they owned approximately eighty five to ninety acres of land on Bayouside Drive In 1990 or 1991 the Boudreauxs and Tradewinds engaged in what has been described as dump truck work which was associated with the construction business Tradewinds hauled and sold river sand and limestone which it would also stockpile at the Bayouside Drive property for later sale In addition a portion of the Bayouside Drive property was set aside so that it could be excavated for dirt after which the dirt would be hauled and sold as part of the business In order for Tradewinds to conduct this work it was necessary for large heavy commercial trucks to traverse Bayouside Drive to conduct business at the Boudreauxs property The record establishes that Bayouside Drive was initially constructed as a farm tomarket road that was overlaid with asphalt and concrete in the late 1960s The roadway is substandard by current standards in that it is rather narrow and does not have much of a shoulder Police Jury the At some point in the early 1980s the Terrebonne Parish pre cursor to the TPCG instructed its staff to place 1 The trial court judgment also dismissed all claims against Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Jerry Larpenter who was dismissed from these proceedings by mutual consent of the parties at the time of trial The plaintiffs have not appealed that portion of the judgment Eugene Trahan had been previously dismissed from the proceedings by an earlier judgment Z Bayouside Drive is not a state highway but a twolane paved parish road 2 signage establishing a fiveton limit on the road to prevent large truck traffic Thereafter the TPCG received a petition from residents in the area to enact a fiveton weight limit restriction on the road In response the TPCG hired Wave Tech Inc an engineering firm to perform non destructive testing of Bayouside Drive to establish the condition and capacity of the roadway The TPCG relied on the findings of the Wave Tech report to support the establishment of a fifteenton weight limit restriction In October 1996 the TPCG enacted Ordinance 5685 which among other things established a fifteen ton weight limit restriction on the entirety of Bayouside Drive The ordinance amended the Terrebonne Parish Code dealing with motor vehicles and traffic and provided in pertinent part as follows The entire length of Bayouside Drive is hereby designated as a 15 ton weight limit zone and appropriate 15 Ton Weight Limit signs shall be erected and maintained along the said roadway to create and maintain said zone Any vehicle traveling on Bayouside Drive shall respect the signs erected and maintained under the provisions of this section Mr Boudreaux testified that he was aware that signs regarding the fifteen ton weight limit were posted along Bayouside Drive in 1996 or 1997 Nevertheless despite the adoption of this ordinance and the presence of the signs Tradewinds continued to operate its business at the Bayouside Drive location without regard for the weight restrictions Furthermore Tradewinds continued to expand so that by 1999 or 2000 it owned twelve to fourteen tandem dump trucks a fleet of eighteen wheeltrailer trucks three bulldozers and two excavators According to Mr Boudreaux each of the tandem dump trucks weighed approximately ten or eleven tons empty and up to five twenty tons when fully loaded He further testified that each eighteen wheeler weighed approximately sixteen tons empty and up to forty tons when fully loaded four Tradewinds used these vehicles to transport dirt river sand limestone and other 3 The record indicates that there was no ordinance establishing this fiveton weight limit however according to the testimony of Al Levron who was the Public Works Director of Terrebonne Parish for many years and was the Parish Manager at the time of his testimony such matters did not need to be handled by ordinance prior to 1984 4 According to Mr Boudreaux the tandem trucks had a capacity of fourteen to fifteen yards of material and the eighteen wheel trailer trucks would carry between twenty and twenty yards of material four six 3 materials to and from the Bayouside Drive location in clear violation of Ordinance 5685 Nevertheless Mr Boudreaux testified that law enforcement officials did not begin to enforce the ordinance until 1999 at which time various citations were given to drivers employed by Tradewinds Law enforcement officials continued to issue citations to the drivers in 2000 and Mr Boudreaux testified that his drivers regularly violated the ordinance because many of the trucks used in the business weighed more than fifteen tons even when empty On May 9 2000 David Norman who was the attorney for the Boudreauxs and Tradewinds at the time wrote a letter to the TPCG complaining that the weight limit would effectively prohibit some or all of Tradewinds trucks from traveling on Bayouside Drive The letter asserts that the weight limit presents obvious issues of unconstitutional regulatory takings since Mr Boudreaux was operating long before this ordinance was passed According to the letter Mr Boudreaux could not continue to operate his business in light of the enforcement of the weight limit ordinance and he had no economically viable alternative to operating at his current location The letter further requested alternative relief from the parish possibly in the form of a permit for which the ordinance did not provide a procedure In December 2000 the TPCG adopted Ordinance 6362 which among other things repealed the weight limit restrictions established in Ordinance 5685 and enacted section 1830 of the Terrebonne Parish Code dealing with motor vehicles and traffic This section reenacted the fifteenton weight limit on Bayouside Drive and allowed for a person to obtain a permit to operate vehicles in excess of the weight limit Specifically section 1830 provides a No person shall drive or operate a vehicle having a total weight in excess of fifteen 15 tons without obtaining a permit from the director of public works or his designee in accordance with section 1832 of this 5 Although Bayouside Drive is the only road to which the fifteenton weight limit applies Ordinance 6362 also establishes variousthe most liberalon other roads in the parish with the fifteenton weight limit on weight limits Bayouside Drive being 6 Section 1831 exempts emergency vehicles and vehicles performing the services of local government including school buses garbage and light delivery trucks from the provisions of the posted weight limit restrictions 4 Code on the following named streets or portions of streets Bayouside Drive b The council from time to time may designate other specific streets or portions of streets on which the maximum weight limit set forth in this section applies c Any person who violated the weight restrictions imposed herein shall in addition to the general penalties set forth for violation of a parish ordinance be liable to the parish government for any damages incurred as a result of the driving or operation of a vehicle in excess of fifteen 15 tons on any of the designated roads or streets set forth herein Section 18 32 provides for the following with regard applications to permit a Applications for permits to drive or operate a vehicle having a total weight in excess of the weight limits established by this Article shall be made to the director of public works or his designee on forms available at the department of public works The department of public works shall notify the council member for the district for which an application is submitted The permit application in addition to stating the name of the persons or business making the application specify what type of vehicles the applicant is requesting for permit and the applicant anticipated s duration of roadway usage b Applications required by this Article to be submitted to the director of public works shall be promptly evaluated by the department of public works based on objective criteria related to the impact of the proposed use on a parish roadway and the department shall determine the term of the permit and appropriate permit requirements for mitigation reparation of damages such as bonding or insurance or If the director of public works or his designee grants a permit he shall notify the applicant of that determination within thirty 30 days from the application date by written notice to the address listed on the application form and the applicant shall within fifteen 15 days of receipt of the administrative determination provide proof of compliance with the conditions of the permit or file an appeal to protest the required conditions as set forth in section 1832 d c If the director of public works or his designee denies a permit application he shall notify the applicant of that determination within thirty 30 days from the application date by written notice to the address listed on the application form The applicant may appeal the denial as set forth in section 18 32 d d If the applicant is aggrieved by the administrative decision he may appeal the decision by filing a written application for appeal within fifteen 15 days of receipt of the administrative determination to the council which may hear or deny the appeal within sixty 60 days If the council grants an application for appeal it shall decide by motion whether to affirm modify or reverse the administrative determination Tradewinds and its drivers continued to violate the weight limit restrictions on 0 Bayouside Drive even after the adoption of Ordinance 6362 without applying for a permit On January 18 2002 Jerry Larpenter the Sheriff of Terrebonne Parish sent a letter to Mr Boudreaux advising him that he was to cease operating trucks on Bayouside Drive in violation of the weight limitations Sheriff Larpenter further warned Mr Boudreaux that citations would be issued if Mr Boudreaux or his drivers continued to operate trucks in violation of the weight limit restrictions on Bayouside Drive Thereafter on January 28 2002 the Boudreauxs and Tradewinds initiated the instant lawsuit by filing a motion for temporary restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent injunction against the TPCG The trial court granted the temporary restraining order and set the matter for hearing on the issue of the preliminary injunction However after a hearing on the preliminary injunction the trial court noted that because plaintiffs had not completed the permit process at the time of the hearing the court was not in a position to determine the issue Therefore the trial court denied the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction At the hearing on the preliminary injunction the plaintiffs also amended their petition to request a declaratory judgment alleging that the ordinances were unconstitutional as applied to their business Specifically the amended petition alleged that Ordinance 5685 violated their rights to property due process and equal protection under the laws Finally the plaintiffs sought damages for inverse condemnation claiming that the application of the ordinances had effectively taken their property rights without just and due compensation Meanwhile the plaintiffs continued the application process in an effort to obtain a permit to operate their trucks on Bayouside Drive On April 18 2002 the TPCG through the assistant parish attorney sent a letter to the plaintiffs and their attorney advising them that a permit would issue for six months upon certain conditions being As noted previously Sheriff Larpenter and Eugene Trahan were also named as defendants in this matter however both have been dismissed from these proceedings and neither is a party to this appeal 8received ahearing Mr Boudreaux testified that he had recently applied for a permit but had not yet At the response 6 met including the production of insurance surety bond or other acceptable security in favor of the Parish in the amount of 125 to cover the cost of any property 000 damage caused to Bayouside Drive by the use of their overweight vehicles In an effort to comply with these conditions the plaintiffs attempted to obtain a surety bond from Marsh USA Inc Marsh According to the plaintiffs the bond company required that they submit audited financial statements for the company prepared by a certified public accountant as well as a fee of approximately 2 to 3 for the bond In 500 125 addition the plaintiffs contended that it would have cost them between 6 and 000 000 12 to pay the certified public accountant to provide the audited financial statements Because they believed these conditions were too onerous the plaintiffs never obtained a surety bond as required by the terms of the permit The parties continued to negotiate in an effort to come to an agreement on the terms of the permit however no agreement was ever reached On November 20 2002 the plaintiffs sent a letter to the Terrebonne Parish Council council alleging that their permit application had been constructively denied The plaintiffs requested that the council overrule the administration and issue a permit to them either with no requirement for a bond or with a bond in a much lower amount Nevertheless the parties continued to negotiate after the filing of the appeal and although the appeal was scheduled for hearing before the council on at least two occasions it was continued each time on the request of the plaintiffs attorney As a result the appeal was never heard by the council In addition the plaintiffs never complied with the conditions established for the permit and no permit was ever issued In July 2004 the plaintiffs filed a second amended petition alleging that since the filing of the original petition their business had been taken away from them due to the passage and enforcement of the ordinances and the failure of the TPCG to act upon the plaintiffs permit application According to the plaintiffs under such circumstances a 9 Mr Boudreaux testified that Tradewinds could have afforded the fee for the bond but it could not have afforded the fee for the audit every six months however Mr Norman the plaintiffs former attorney testified every he was not aware whether the audit requested by the bond company would have been that six months needed 7 preliminary injunction would no longer be of use to them The plaintiffs further alleged that they had been forced to start a new business because their trucks could no longer run Therefore the plaintiffs restated their earlier claim for inverse condemnation contending that enforcement of the ordinances has deprived them of virtually all economically viable use of the Bayouside Drive property In addition to the damages requested in the earlier amended petition the plaintiffs also prayed for costs of court and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to LSAR 32 S 5211 The trial court conducted a bench trial after which it took the matter under advisement On March 29 2010 the trial court signed a written judgment in favor of the TPCG dismissing the plaintiffs claims against it with prejudice The trial court further provided written reasons finding that the plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden of proving that the ordinance in question was unconstitutional Plaintiffs have appealed DISCUSSION The question of whether the ordinances at issue are constitutional is a legal question which will be reviewed de novo See State v All Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers Authorized j Licensed to do Business in State 062030 La and 06 25 8 937 So 313 319 2d An ordinance like any act of the legislature is presumed to be constitutional Everhardt v City of New Orleans 253 La 285 289 217 2d So 400 401 1968 WesTErre Develo m nt C r oration v Terrebonne Parish Through Police July Of Terrebonne Parish 416 So 209 215 La App 1st Cir writ 2d denie 421 So 251 La 1982 Therefore the party challenging the validity of the 2d ordinance has the burden of establishing by clear evidence that the ordinance is unconstitutional WesTErre Development Corporation 416 So at 215 see also 2d State v Citizen 041841 La 4 898 So 325 334 05 1 2d Plaintiffs contend that the TPCG enacted the ordinances in violation of Article I 4 of the Louisiana Constitution as well as the Fifth Amendment to the United States 10 At trial it was established that this new business which involves crew boats is more profitable than the former dump truck business 8 Constitution At the time these ordinances were adopted Article I Louisiana Constitution provided in pertinent part 4 of the 12 A Every person has the right to acquire own control use enjoy protect and dispose of private property This right is subject to reasonable statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of the police power B Property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its political subdivisions except for public purposes and with just compensation paid to the owner or into court for his benefit In every expropriation a party has the right to trial by jury to determine compensation and the owner shall be compensated to the full extent of his loss Ownership is the right that confers on a person direct immediate and exclusive authority over a thing The owner of a thing may use enjoy and dispose of it within the limits and under the conditions established by law LSA C art 477 State Through Dept of Transp and Development v Chambers Inv Co Inc 595 So 598 2d 603 La 1992 see also LSA Const art I 4 However the rights of a landowner are always subject to reasonable statutory restrictions and the reasonable exercise of the police power LSAConst art I A 4 The police power is a power inherent in every governing authority to govern men and things and within constitutional limits to prescribe regulations for the promotion of public health safety morals and general welfare WesTErre Development Corp 416 2d So at 214 The test of whether an ordinance or regulation is a constitutionally valid exercise of police power depends on whether under all circumstances the regulation is reasonable and whether it is designed to accomplish a purpose properly falling within the scope of the police power Icl The parties do not dispute that the TPCG has the power to pass ordinances to establish weight limits on the roads within the parish 1236 33 See LSAR 48 LSA R S 481 S However the plaintiffs contend that the passage of these ordinances 11 This amendment provides in pertinent part nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation U Const amend V S Paragraph B of Article I section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution was amended by 2006 La Acts No 1 approved September 30 2006 however the relevant substantive language above is largely unchanged 851 9 constitutes an inverse condemnation of their property in violation of the constitutional provisions above To establish inverse condemnation a party must show that 1 a recognized species of property right has been affected 2 the property has been taken or damaged in a constitutional sense and 3 the taking or damaging was for a public purpose under Article I 4 of the Louisiana Constitution Suire v Lafayette City Parish Consolidated Government 041459 La 4 907 So 37 60 As the trial court 05 12 2d noted in its written reasons for judgment there does not appear to be any dispute that any alleged taking or damaging of the Bayouside Drive property by the passage of the ordinances would have been for a public purpose Furthermore it is clear that the imposition of the fifteen ton weight limit on Bayouside Drive affected the plaintiffs ability to use that property in the manner it had previously been used at least without their having to go through the additional steps necessary to qualify for a permit Therefore it appears that the only question left to be decided with regard to the issue of inverse condemnation is whether the Bayouside Drive property has been taken or damaged in a constitutional sense In Annison v Hoover 517 So 420 423 La App 1st Cir 1987 writ denied 2d 519 So 148 La 1988 this court recognized a distinction between regulatory 2d takings and physical takings of property According to the court physical takings are easily identifiable while regulatory takings may or may not be In addition the court held that regulatory programs that adversely affect property values did not constitute a taking unless it destroyed a major portion of the property value s 1d Only after the court determines that there has been a destruction of a major portion of the property s value can the question of compensation be considered Id The plaintiffs suggest that the TPCG passage of the weight limit restrictions s constitutes an unconstitutional taking of the Bayouside Drive property because it deprived the plaintiffs of the practical economic uses of the property and substantially diminished the value of the property without expropriation due process and compensation Specifically the plaintiffs contend that by passing these ordinances the 10 TPCG destroyed Tradewinds business value as plaintiffs could no longer operate their trucks to haul dirt sand and limestone from the Bayouside Drive property to their customers However a review of the record does not support the plaintiffs contentions The record demonstrates that the fifteenton weight limit on Bayouside Drive was just one facet of a parishwide plan for establishing weight limits on roads within the parish and that the weight limit established on Bayouside Drive was the most liberal limit on roadways in the parish The record further demonstrates that the weight limit on Bayouside Drive was established after consultation with experts and in reliance on their recommendations 13 Testimony in the record further indicated that the weight limit on Bayouside Drive was adopted in response to concerns about the condition of the road raised by other residents in the area There was also evidence that the area of the road around the entrance to the plaintiffs property was torn up possibly due to the constant traffic from the plaintiffs heavy trucks It was not unreasonable for the TPCG to establish weight limits on a road that was being damaged and for which it was financially responsible It is also clear that the plaintiffs had the ability to continue conducting their business at the Bayouside Drive location by complying with the requirements necessary to obtain a permit that would have allowed them to operate their trucks with a total weight in excess of fifteen tons on Bayouside Drive However for whatever reason the plaintiffs chose not to comply with these requirements The plaintiffs have attempted to place the blame for the loss of their business on the TPCG failure to provide a s procedure for obtaining a permit in the original ordinance However the record clearly demonstrates that despite their knowledge of the weight limits on the road in 1996 or 1997 the plaintiffs continued to operate out of the Bayouside Drive location without interference until 1999 Furthermore even after law enforcement officials began to 13 Specifically the TPCG commissioned a study from Wave Tech an engineering firm which determined that Bayouside Drive would have a life span of approximately eight andonehalf years with a fifteenton weight limit considering the traffic flow at the time of the report As noted previously it was based on this report that the TPCG settled on the 15 ton weight limit for Bayouside Drive 11 write citations and issue warnings for the violation of the ordinance the plaintiffs and their drivers continued to openly operate their business in clear violation of the ordinance It was not until the year 2000 that the plaintiffs attempted to communicate with the TPCG about the ordinance and later that year the TPCG enacted a new ordinance to allow for a procedure to obtain a permit to operate vehicles in excess of the weight limit 2002 Nevertheless the plaintiffs failed to even apply for a permit until Even then however the plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements set forth by the TPCG to obtain the permit The plaintiffs have attempted to demonstrate that they could not comply with the requirements to obtain a permit because the amount of security required by the TPCG was excessive In support of this contention they provided a letter from Marsh the company from which they had attempted to obtain a surety bond in which the company suggested that it found it extremely unusual that the parish would ask for a bond in the amount of 125 when the overweight bonds it usually saw were much 000 lower However the TPCG demonstrated that it had relied on DOTD guidelines in establishing the amount of security it would request in this matter Furthermore the record indicated that in an unrelated matter another company was required to post a 000 375 letter of credit for an overweight permit to operate on Bayouside Drive Accordingly we find that the plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of proof that the passage of the ordinances caused the Bayouside Drive property to be taken or damaged in a constitutional sense The plaintiffs further contend that the ordinances violated their rights to both procedural and substantive due process under the United States and Louisiana Constitutions which prohibit a person from being deprived of life liberty or property except by due process of law See U Const amends V and XIV LSAConst art I S 2 The central meaning of procedural due process is well settled Persons whose rights may be affected by state action are entitled to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be 12 notified In re Adoption of B 556 So 545 549 La 1990 We note however S G 2d that the adoption and amendment of the ordinances was a legislative function undertaken by the TPCG as part of its general police power to regulate the roads in Terrebonne Parish See LSA R 48 LSAR 33 When a governmental S 481 S 1236 action is characterized as legislative or quasi legislative requirements do not apply procedural due process Jackson Court Condominiums Inc v New Orleans 874 2d F 1070 1074 5th Cir 1989 Messina v St Charles Parish Council 03644 La App 5th Cir 12 865 So 158 161 writ denied 040285 La 3 871 So 03 30 2d 04 26 2d 354 cert denied 544 U 1060 125 S 2512 161 L 1109 2005 S Ct 2d Ed We further note that although the TPCG never denied their permit application the plaintiffs did schedule two appeal hearings before the council claiming that their permit application had been constructively denied On each occasion the hearing was continued on motion of the plaintiffs attorney Therefore we find that the plaintiffs cannot now be heard to complain that they were not provided an opportunity for a meaningful hearing in this matter Accordingly there was no violation of their right to procedural due process The plaintiffs also contend that the ordinances violated their right to substantive due process suggesting that the ordinances interfered with their property interests in a way that was arbitrary or capricious Substantive due process may be broadly defined as the constitutional guaranty that no person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life liberty or property 1976 Babineaux v Judiciary Cgmmission 341 So 396 400 La 2d The essence of substantive due process is protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action Id In order to prove a violation of substantive due process the plaintiffs must first establish the existence of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest Standard Materials Inc v City of Slidell 960684 La App 1st Cir 9 700 So 97 23 2d 975 985 86 Once that interest has been established a violation of substantive due process still requires arbitrary and capricious conduct by the governing authority 13 A government decision regulating a landowner use of his property offends substantive s due process if the government action is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable having no substantial relation to the public health safety morals Materials Inc 700 So at 986 2d or general welfare Standard In other words government action comports with substantive due process if the action is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest Id Assuming that the plaintiffs can satisfy the first prong of the test by establishing the existence of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest the plaintiffs clearly cannot meet the second prong of the test The TPCG conduct in passing the s ordinances to establish a weight limit is clearly rationally related to its legitimate interest in protecting a road for which it was financially responsible Keeping such a road in good repair is necessary and rationally related to public safety As noted previously evidence in the record indicated that the TPCG commissioned a study on the impact the heavy trucks would have on the road and used the information that study provided in determining the appropriate weight limit to establish therefore the weight limit was clearly not established in an arbitrary or capricious manner Accordingly we find that the plaintiffs are unable to sustain a claim that their substantive due process rights were violated 14 Finally plaintiffs contend that the ordinances violated their right to equal protection under the laws pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I 3 of the Louisiana Constitution Generally the state constitutional guarantee of equal protection mandates that state laws affect alike all persons and interests similarly situated This guarantee does not however take from the legislature all power of classification Beauclaire v Greenhouse 05 0765 La 06 22 2 922 So 501 505 2d is In Standard Materials Inc 700 So at 983 the court in reliance 2d Plannina Commi ion v Hamilton Bank of Johnson Ci on Willi mson oun Re ion I 473 U 172 186 194 105 S 3108 3116 S Ct 3120 87 L 126 1985 suggested that a substantive due process claim might not be ripe until the 2d Ed governmental entity charged with implementing the challenged regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue However the court then discussed the merits of the substantive due process claim in the event that this determination regarding ripeness is erroneous Standard Materials Inc 700 So at 983 2d We have also discussed the merits of the substantive due process claim in this matter for the purpose of judicial economy 14 In i le v B of Supervisors Qf Louisiana State University 477 So 1094 2d 1107 La 1985 the supreme court set forth a threetier evaluation to determine whether there had been a violation of equal protection as follows Article I Section 3 commands the courts to decline enforcement of a legislative classification of individuals in three different situations 1 When the law classifies individuals by race or religious beliefs it shall be repudiated completely 2 When the statute classifies persons on the basis of birth age sex culture physical condition or political ideas or affiliations its enforcement shall be refused unless the state or other advocate of the classification shows that the classification has a reasonable basis 3 When the law classifies individuals on any other basis it shall be rejected whenever a member of a disadvantaged class shows that it does not suitably further any appropriate state interest Footnotes omitted It is clear that the third level of scrutiny applies in this case because there is no classification based on race religious beliefs birth age sex culture physical condition or political beliefs When the third level of scrutiny applies the law creating the classification is presumed to be constitutional Thus the party challenging the constitutionality of the law has the burden of proving it is unconstitutional by showing the statute fails to serve a legitimate governmental 50506 purpose Beauclaire 922 So at 2d Great deference is given to legislative determinations and a classification is constitutional if it has a rational relationship to a valid state interest Beaucl ire 922 2d So at 506 As discussed previously the weight limit is clearly rationally related to the legitimate governmental purpose of preserving the life span of the road and keeping it in good repair The plaintiffs suggest in their brief to this court that there may have been some selective enforcement of the ordinances such that others were not cited for violating the ordinances while the plaintiffs were repeatedly cited Assuming this to be true does not change the analysis of the language of the ordinances for equal protection purposes Furthermore the enforcement of the ordinances was carried out by officials with the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Department and other law enforcement s departments which have not been made defendants in this matter Accordingly we is The sheriff was originally a defendant but he was dismissed prior to trial 15 find that the plaintiffs are unable to sustain a claim that they have been deprived of equal protection under the laws CONCLUSION For the above reasons we affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs claims against the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government All costs of court are assessed to the plaintiffs Robert Boudreaux Jessica Boudreaux and Tradewinds Offshore Services Inc dba RB Enterprises AFFIRMED
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.
