Animal Legal Defense Fund, Warren Triche, Jr., Brandi J. Sutten & Jennifer Torquati VS State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, & Robert Barham, in his official capacity as Secretary of the State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife & Fisheries
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL n rZ nJ I GV FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2012 CA 0971 ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND WARREN TRICHE JR BRANDI J SUTTEN AND JENTIIFER TORQUATI VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES ROBERT BARHAM IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES Judgment Rendered bPR 2 7013 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 600 780 Honorable R Michael Caldwell Judge Jennifer Treadway Morris Paul R Baier Baton Rouge Attorneys for Appellants Defendants Intervenors LA Michael Sandlin Tiger Truck Stop Inc Monica A Frois N Brandy Sheely Erin E Pelleteri New Orleans LA and Attorneys for Appellees Plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund Warren Triche Jr Brandi J Sutten Jennifer Torquati and John Kelleher Matthew G Liebman Cotati CA and Cynthia L Taub Washington DC Ryan M Daniel G Seidemann Asst A D G Henry Jr Asst A Frederick C Whitrock Atforneys for Appellee Defendant State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife Fisheries Baton Rouge LA BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND KLINE JJ 1 Hon William F Kline Jr retired is serving as judge ad hoc by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court WELCH J This is an appeal by the intervenors Tiger Truck Stop Ina Tiger Truck Stop and Michael Sandlin from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs granting permanent and mandatory injunctive relief against the State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries DWF relative to a permit request by Michael Sandlin to DWF allowing him to possess a male tiger Tony on the premises ofTiger Truck Stop Additionally before this Court is a motion to strike filed by the appellees For reasons that follow we grant the motion to plaintiffs strike we dismiss the appeal in part as moot and we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Tiger Truck Stop is a service station located just off of Interstate 10 in Grosse Tete in Iberville Parish Louisiana In 2001 Tiger Truck Stop acquired ownership of Tony and since that time Tony has lived and been e on the ibited premises of Tiger Truck Stop Michael Sandlin is the sole stockholder and registered agent of Tiger Truck Stop In effect when Tiger Truck Stop acquired Tony was an Animal Control Ordinance that had been unanimously adopted by the Iberville Parish Police Jury Section 3 of the Ordinance provided 91 Display of wild or exotic animals prohibited No person shall keep or permit to be kept on his premises any wild exotic vicious animal or reptile for display ar for exhibition purposes whether gratuitously or for a fee This section shall not apply to zoological parks performing animal exhibitions circuses or veterinary clinics In 2006 the Louisiana Legislature enacted House Bill 795 which was introduced by former State Representative Warren Triche Jr who is a plaintiff in this matter The bill was ultimately signed by the Governor of Louisiana and 2 became Act 715 See 2006 La Acts No 715 1 This legislation enacted La S6 R 56 to provide as follows 31 The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries commission through its secretary 31 Shall promulgate rules and regulations to control the importation and private possession of big exotic cats including but not limited to tigers lions leopards jaguars cheetahs and hybrids resulting from cross of such cats The rules shall provide breeding exceptions for big cats traditionaliy kept by colleges and universities as school mascots animal sanctuaries zoos wildlife research centers and scientific organizations Such rules shall address Internet purchase of such animals Such rules shall also provide for permits for certain institutions and for owners who can prove previous ownership Violation of rules and regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of this Paragraph constitutes a class two violation punishable as provided in R 5632 S In June 2007 the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission promulgated rules and regulations to implement 2006 La Acts No 715 1 which are set forth in LAC 76 These regulations provide in pertinent part as follows 115 V 115 Possession of Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadrupeds Big Exotic Cats and Non Primates Human A This commission finds that possession of certain potentially dangerous big exotic cats poses significant hazards to public safety and health is detrimental to the welfare of the animals and may have negative impacts on conservation and recovery of some threatened and endangered species 1 The size and strength of such animals in concert with their natural and unpredictable and predatory nature can result in ar severe injury or death when an attack upon a human occurs Often such attacks are unprovoked and a person other than the owner often child is the victim Furthermore there is no approved rabies vaccine for such animals so even minor scratches and injuries a inflicted upon humans or other animals could be deadly 2 Responsible possession of these potentially dangerous big exotic necessitates that they be confined in secure facilities Prolonged confinement is by its nature stressful to these animals and proper long care by experienced persons is essential term to the health and welfare of these animals and to society cats 3 B This commission regulation prohibits importation and big exotic cats private possession and otherwise regulates certain as provided herein C 1 Except as provided herein it shall be unlawful to import into possess purchase or sell within the state of Louisiana by any means whatsoever subspecies of big any of the following species or its domesticated or otherwise exotic cats h The following big exotic cats i tigers 2 Holders of a Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadruped Permit allowing possession of any listed animal where the permit is valid on the effective date of this regulation will be grandfathered and the permit will be renewed annually until existing permitted captive animals expire or are legally transferred out of state or are transferred to a suitable facility No additional listed animals may be acquired by any means whatsoever including breeding E Exempted Entities The following organizations and entities shall be exempt from this regulation including permitting 1 zoos accredited or certified by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association AZA 2 research facilities as defined in the Animal Welfare Act as found in the United States Code Title 7 Chapter 54 2132 e and 3 any person transporting any listed animal ttu the ough state 4 circuses 5 Louisiana colleges or universities for possession of a big exotic cat of the species traditionally kept by that college or university as a school mascot F Permitted Entities The following organizations and entities may be exempted from this regulation after applying far and receiving a permit from the department to possess any listed animal under the following conditions l other zoos and educational institutions not covered under Paragraphs E above 2 l 4 2 animal sanctuaries accredited or certified by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association AZA H Big Exotic Cats An individual who legally possesses one or more exotic cats listed in Subparagraph C above on August I5 h l 2006 the effective date of 2006 La Acts No 715 and who can prove legal ownership is authorized to keep those exotic cats under the following conditions 1 Only those exotic cats legally possessed on August I5 2006 will be permitted Additional exotic cats cannot be acquired by any means whatsoever including breeding 2 The individuals listed in this Subsection must annually apply for and receive a permit from DWF The permit application shall be on a form provided by DWF and require a The name address telephone number driver s license number and date of birth of applicant e proof of legal ownership of the exotic cat on August 1S 2006 Proof of legal ownership includes original purchase documents veterinary records or other documentation acceptable to DWF demonstrating ownership 4 Permittee or designee must live on the premises Designee must have the ability to carry out all requirements of the permittee 13 In addition to complying with this regulation permittee must comply with any and alt applicable federal other state or local law rule regulation ordinance permit or other permission Failure to comply with any such law rule regulation ordinance permit or other permission constitutes a violation of this regulation J penalty for violation Unless another penalty is provided by law violation of these regulations will be a Class Two violation as defined in Title 56 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes In addition upon conviction for violation of these regulations any license permit may be revoked and the quadrupeds or other animals seized in connection with the violation will be farfeited 5 Emphasis added Following the promulgation of these rules DWF notified Michael Sandlin that he would have to obtain a permit far Tony apparently Michael Sandlin then submitted an application for a permit to DWF On October 15 2008 Edward A Songy Jr the Chief Administrative Officer far the Iberville Parish Council sent DWF a letter notifying DWF that it had received several complaints regarding the tiger being housed at the Tiger Truck Stop and informing DWF of Iberville Parish Ordinances 91 Section 3 Shortly thereafter on November 17 2008 Robert Barham the current Secretary of DWF denied Michael Sandlin permit s application for his failure to meet LAC 76 because he was not in 13 H V115 compliance with Iberville Parish Ordinances Section 3 relating to the 91 possession of big exotic cats Following a lawsuit by Michael Sandlin and Tiger Truck Stop against Iberville Parish and DWF Iberville Parish Ordinances Section 3 was amended 91 by the Iberville Parish Council to provide for Sections 3 through 3 so as 1 91 5 91 to exempt ttiger that is currently located at the Tiger Truck Stop from the he provisions of Section December 14 91 3 retroactive 2009 DWF through to August 15 2006 Secretary Barham Thereafter on issued Potentially Dangerous Quadruped and Non Primate Permit No P44 to Michael Human Sandlin for male unknown Tony microchip tiger age 477E201A4C This permit was valid for one year On December 10 2010 DWF through Secretary Barham reissued Permit No P44 for one year 2 See Michael Sandlin Tiger Truck Stop Inc vs Iberville Parish and State of Louisiana through Department of Wildlife Fisheries Number District Court Parish of Iberville State of Louisiana 287 67 on the docket of the 18 Judicial 3 There is no dispute by the parties that at the end of December 2011 the December 10 2010 permit expired by its own terms 6 On Aprii 11 2011 the Animal Legal Defense Fund ALDF Warren Triche Jr Brandi J Sutten and Jennifer Torquati filed afor Injunctive Petition Relief and Writ of Mandamus Against Unlawful Permitting of Potentially Dangerous Quadruped against DWF and Secretary Barham In the petition the plaintiffs alleged that Michael Sandlin did not qualify for grandfathered status and did not meet the requirements of the regulations promulgated by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission on December 14 2009 when Secretary Barham issued Permit No P44 to him Specifically the plaintiffs alleged Michael Sandlin was ineligible for a permit because on August 15 2006 the effective date of 2006 La Acts No 715 he illegally possessed Tony at Tiger Truck Stop as his possession was in violation of Iberville Parish Ordinances Section 3 and because neither Sandiin nor his designees lived on the prernises 91 of Tiger Truck Stop The plaintiffs argued that the issuance and reissuance or renewal of the permit violated the Louisiana Revised Statutes and the Louisiana Administrative Code endangered public safety by exposing Louisiana residents to a dangerous wild animal and diminished the welfare of a critically endangered species by permitting Michael Sandlin to continue Tony inhumane captivity at Tiger Truck s Stop The plaintiffs claimed that DWF and Secretary Barham had a statutory duty to deny the permit application and that their issuance and reissuance or renewal of the permit was arbitrary capricious and an abuse of discretion Therefore the plaintiffs sought mandatory injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus ardering or The individual plaintiffs alleged that they were residents and taspayers of Louisiana In an amended petition the ALDF alleged that it was an animal protection organization that has diverted organizational resources to educate the public about Tony plight and to challenge the s issuance of MichaeI Sandlin spermit through an administrative perition 5 By amended petition filed on October 10 2011 John Kelleher was added as a plaintiff he was alleged to be a Louisiana resident ta and licensee in that he had paid for and used various cpayer licenses issued by DWF from 2005 through the present Additionally the amended petition added the intervenors Michael Sandlin and Tiger Truck Stop as defendants to this action 7 DWF and Secretary Barham to cease permitting the possession of Tony by Michael Sandlin by immediately revoking the December 10 2010 permit preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting DWF and Secretary Barham from issuing any future permits and the release of the tiger into the custody of the ALDF or an accredited animal sanctuary for care treatment and purposes of habitation In response DWF filed an answer essentially denying the factual allegations of the plaintiffs petition The trial court conducted a hearing on May 5 2011 and issued a ruling on May 6 2011 an order for final injunction in permanent accordance with the trial court oral ruling was signed by the trial court on May s 19 2011 The order judgment granted a preliminary and permanent injunction against DWF from issuing any new permits to Michael Sandlin or Tiger Truck Stop allowing Michael Sandlin or Tiger Truck Stop to possess Tony provided that a mandatory injunction ordering DWF to revoke Michael Sandlin current permit s P44 issued on December 10 2010 would not issue at that time denied the plaintiffs request for a writ of mandamus denied the plaintiffs request that Tony be released to ALDF assessed all costs to DWF and ordered plaintiffs to furnish security in the amount of 1 for the provisions of the order judgment to take 500 effect Michael Sandlin and Tiger Truck Stop did not participate in the May 5 2011 hearing and they claimed that they were not provided notice and were unaware of the hearing Michael Sandlin and Tiger Truck Stop then filed a Petition in Intervention on May 20 2011 which was denied by the trial court because they had no standing Michael Sandlin and Tiger Truck Stop then filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene which was granted on June 17 2011 The intervenars 6 According to a subsequent motion filed by the plaintiffs the trial court declined to rule on that request for relief at that time 8 then filed an Amended Petition in Intervention and Motion for a New Trial on June 24 2011 arguing that they were indispensable parties that the previous judgment issuing the injunctions should be vacated and that there should be a new trial on the matter That same day the trial court denied the intervenors motion for new trial The intervenars then filed a supervisory writ application with this court While the intervenors writ application was still pending with this court the intervenors filed in the trial court a peremptory exception raising the objections of nonjoinder of a party needed for just adjudication or indispensable parties no right of action and no cause of action and a dilatory exception raising the objections of prematurity and unauthorized use of a summary proceeding At a hearing on August 15 2011 the trial court overruled all of the intervenors dilatory and peremptory exceptions and a judgment in accordance with the trial court s ruling was signed on September 7 2011 The intervenors filed a motion for new trial with respect to overruling the objection of nonjoinder of an indispensable party which the trial court denied on September 14 20ll Additionally the trial court scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs request for a mandatory injunction commanding DWF to revoke Michael Sandlin spermit and to take the tiger into custody On August 11 2 DWF filed a peremptory 11 exception raising the objections of no right of action and no cause of action as to all remaining causes of action stated in the pp laintiffs etition Thereafter on August 29 2011 another panel of this court granted the intervenors supervisory writ finding that the denial of the Motion for New Trial was in error and that the intervenors were parties needed for just adjudication in this case Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 2011 La App l Cir 8 1525 11 29 According to the trial court written reasons for denying the motion for new trial it s determined that since Michael Sandlin and Tiger Truck Stop had intervened and were allowed to participate in any hearing the objection was moot 9 unpublished writ action Tlus court then reversed the trial court ruling denying s the motion for new trial vacated the trial court May 19 2011 order for s permanent final injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings Id The intervenors then filed a supplemental and amended petition in intervention and for a writ of mandamus seeking to have DWF and Secretary Barham promulgate rules and regulations allowing a corporation to obtain a permit to possess a tiger and to enjoin DWF and Secretary Barham from taking any adverse action against the intervenors with regard to their possession of Tony A hearing on all pending issues was held on November 2 2011 By judgment signed on November 17 2011 the trial court overruled the peremptory exception raising the objections of no cause of action and no right of action filed by DWF denied the intervenors petition for writ of mandamus and other relief granted the plaintiffs request for injunctive relief in part issued a final permanent injunction against DWF from issuing any new permits to Michael Sandlin and or Tiger Truck Stop for the tiger Tony microchip 477E201A4C now located at Tiger Truck Stop in Iberville Parish issued a mandatory injunction against DWF ordering DWF to revoke the Potentially Dangerous Quadruped and Non Human Primate Permit P44 currently issued in the name of Michael Sandlin denied the plaintiffs request for an arder that the tiger Tony microchip 477E201A4C now located at Tiger Truck Stop in Iberville Parish be taken into custody or seized by DWF forfeited and released to the ALDF or some other entity assessed all costs of these proceedings to DWF and ordered plaintiffs to furnish security in the amount of 5 for the provisions of the order judgment to take effect 000 8 For this hearing all of the parties entered into stipulations of fact and stipulations as to the authenticity and admissibility of all documentary evidence submitted at the hearing Additionally the parties stipulated that those stipulations constituted a trial on the merits 9 DWF filed a motion for new trial with respect to the assessment of costs to DWF The record does not contain a written ruling v xespect to this motion however the minutes of the trial ith court reflect that the motion was denied in open court on January 23 2012 10 Michael Sandlin and Tiger Truck Stop filed a motion for a new trial which the trial court denied on December 6 2011 and they now devolutively appeal the November 17 2011 judgment and the December 6 20ll denial of the new trial MOTION TO STRIKE The plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike seeking to have this court strike the brief of the appellants in its entirety or alternatively striking intervenors ibits eB and C from the brief and removing said eashibits from the record of this matter See Uniform Rules Courts ofAppeal 2 The plaintiffs Rule 12 13 allege the brief is non in that exhibits B and C to the brief post conforming date the judgments being appealed have no bearing on the judgments being appealed and are in violation of Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal 2 Rules 12 4 and 2 The exhibits at issue are a transcript of a ruling issued by the trial 5 12 court on May 3 2012 with regard to a subsequent request by the plaintiffs for a writ of mandamus to DWF for the seizure of Tony and a June 7 2012 judgment of dismissal in an entirely separate proceeding which involves some of the same parties as this suit These e were for proceedings after judgment was ibits rendered in this case and therefore could not be part of the record on appeal herein Accordingly we grant the plaintiffs motion to strike eB and C ibits from the appellants brief as those exhibits are not properly before intervenors this court 10 DWF has not appealed the trial court decision herein s 11 This motion was refened ta this panel by another panel of this court See Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife Fisheries et al 2012 0971 La App lCir 9 unpublishedaction on motdon 12 13 12 The sanction permitted to be imposed for a non brief is left to the appellate conforming sdiscretion Northshore Regional Medical Center L v Dill 2011 La App court C 2271 1 Cir 6 94 So 155 160 writ denied 2012 La 10 98 So3d 862 Under 12 8 3d 1494 8112 the circumstances of this case we find that striking the brief of the appellants in its intervenors entirety would be unreasonably hazsh Therefare we grant the plaintiffs alternative request to strike the offending exhibits from the brief and record in this matter 11 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR On appeal the intervenors assert that the trial court erred in 1 overruling s DWF peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action 2 granting the plaintiffs request for a mandatory injunction requiring DWF to revoke Potentially Dangerous Quadruped and Non Primate Permit P44 Human currently issued in the name of Michael Sandlin allowing him to possess Tony the Tiger microchip 477E201A4C at Tiger Truck Stop and 3 issuing a permanent injunction prohibiting DWF from issuing any new permits allowing Michael Sandlin to possess a tiger at Tiger Truck Stop LAW AND DISCUSSION No Right ofAction An action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual interest which he asserts La C art 681 see also Industrial Companies Inc v P Durbin 2002 La 1 837 So 1207 1216 Standing is a concept 0665 03 28 2d utilized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to ensure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court Mouton v Department of Wildlife Fisheries for State of La 95 La App 1 Cir 6 657 0101 51 95 23 2d So 622 626 writs denied 95 and 95 La 11 663 So 710 2161 2164 95 17 2d and 711 The requirement of standing is satisfied ifit can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake in the litigation Id see also Municipal Employees Retirement System v Office of Rural Development 95 La App 1 Cir 6 676 So 835 836 writ 2505 st 96 28 2d 13 gecause the appellants aze the intervenors in this suit they have a right to appeal any judgment by which they are aggrieved See La C arts 1091 and 2086 see also Mike M P Marcello Inc v Louisiana Gaming Control Board 2004 La App l Cir 5 903 0488 OS 6 2d So 545 547 However the intervenor takes the proceeding as he finds it and he cannot 48 substitute himself for one of the parties and urge matters that enlarge the issues or modify the basic procedural nature of the principal demand by way of intervention Marcello 903 So at 2d 548 The intervenor cannot change the issue between the parties and can raise no new issues between the defendant and plaintiff that they themselves have not xaised Id 12 denied 96 La 11 683 So 269 In other words standing requires 1989 8i96 2d that the plaintiff have an adequate interest in himself which the law recognizes against a defendant having a substantial adverse interest Id The function of the peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action is to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to a class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted in the suit See La C art P 6 A 927 Industrial Companies 837 So at 1216 The focus in an exception 2d of no right of action is on whether the particular plaintiff has a right to bring the suit it assumes that the petition states a valid cause of action for some person and questions whether the plaintiff in the particular case is a member of the class that has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation Benoit v Allstate Insurance Company 2000 La 11 773 So 702 708 Whether a 0424 00 28 2d plaintiff has a right of action is a question of law therefore it is reviewed de novo on appeal Gibbs v Delatte 2005 La App l Cir 12 927 So 0821 OS 22 2d 1131 1135 writ denied 2006 La 4 926 So 548 0198 06 24 2d In the appellanta first assignment of error they contend that the trial court erred in overruling the peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action filed by DWF against the plaintiffs Thus the appellants are seeking review of the November 17 2011 judgment overruling the DWF objection of no right of s action as opposed to seeking review of the September 7 2011 interlocutory judgment overruling their own objection of no right of action Accarding to the recard on August 11 2011 DWF filed its peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action as all remaining causes of action stated in the to laintiffs p petition Notably at that time the only remaining causes of action 14 A judgment overruling an exception is generally considered an interlocutory judgment and is not appealable See La C arts 1841 and 2083 However we could have considered the P correcmess of the September 7 2011 interlocutory judgment in conjunction with the appeal of the November 17 2011 judgment which is a final and appealable judgment See People of Living God v Chantilly Corporation 251 La 943 947 207 So 752 753 1968 48 2d 13 in the plaintiffs petition was the request for a mandatory injunction ordering DWF to immediately revoke Michael Sandlin December 10 2010 permit to possess s Tony because the trial court had already adjudicated all other issues raised in the plaintiffs petition in the May 19 2011 judg and this court had not yet nent vacated that judgment Thus it appears that DWF objection of no right of s action was limited to the plaintiffs request for a mandatory injunction However under La C art 865 we are authorized to construe every P pleading so as to do substantial justice Therefore in the interest of justice we will also address the issue of the plaintiffs standing or right of action to request a permanent injunction against DWF barring it from issuing any new permits to Michael Sandlin or Tiger Truck Stop relative to the possession of Tony The writ of injunction harsh drastic and extraordinary remedy a should only issue in those instances where the moving party is threatened with irreparable loss or injury and is without an adequate remedy at law Concerned Citizens for Proper Planning LLC v Parish of Tangipahoa 2004 La App 1 Cir 0270 OS 24 3 906 So 660 664 Irreparable injury has been interpreted to mean a 2d loss that cannot be adequately compensated in money damages or measured by a pecuniary standard Id However a showing of irreparable injury is not necessary when the act sought to be enjoined is unlawful Id The general rule is that an injunction will only issue in its prohibitory form however a mandatory injunction which commands the doing of some action may also be issued to undo what has been illegally done Id As previously noted the plaintiffs sought both a permanent injunction against DWF relative to the issuance of any future permits to Michael Sandlin or ls This court did not vacate the May 19 20ll judgment until August 29 2011 See Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v 5tate of Louisiana Department of WildGfe and Fisheries 1525 2011 La App lCir 8 unpublished writ action 11 29 See also La C art 927 providing that the appellate court may notice the right or P B interest of the plainriff to institute suit on its own motion 14 Tiger Truck Stop for the possession of Tony and a mandatory injunction against DWF relative to the revocation of Michael Sandlin current permit to possess s Tony These two requests far injunctive relief are substantively different in that one seeks to prohibit future action by DWF and the latter seeks to command DWF to take specific action Accordingly we will address the issue of the plaintiffs standing or right of action as we address the merits of each request far relief Mandatory Injunction In the plaintiffs petition they asserted that Michael Sandlin was ineligible for a permit at the time that it was issued and that Secretary Barham and DWF or had a ministerial duty to deny the permit application Thus the plaintiffs requested injunctive relief ordering Secretary Barham and DWF to immediately revoke or the permit The permit at issue that the piaintiffs sought to have revoked Potentially Dangerous Quadruped and Non Primate Permit No P44 Human currently issued in the name of Michael Sandlin was issued on December 10 2010 and was valid for a period of one year Although the trial court issued a mandatory injunction against DWF ordering DWF to revoke that permit pursuant to the November 17 2011 judgment by the end of December 2011 that permit would have expired by its own terms It is well settled that courts will not decide abstract hypothetical or moot controversies or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies Louisiana State Board of Nursing v Gautreaux 2009 La App l Cir 1758 10 11 639 So 806 811 writ denied 2010 La ll 50 So3d 806 3d 1957 10 5 An issue is moot when a judgment or decree on that issue has been deprived of practical significance or made abstract or purely academic Id Thus a case is moot when a rendered judgment or decree can serve no useful purpose and give no 15 practical relief or effect Id If the case is moot there is no subject matter on which the judgment ofthe court can operate Id In this case regardless of the propriety of the trial court ruling granting the s mandatory injunctive relief and its finding that the plaintiffs had standing to request such reliefl given that the permit at issue has expired by its own terms any judgment by this court relative to those issues will have no practical relief or effect for the parties and would thus be an impermissible advisory opinion Accordingly we find all issues raised in this appeal relative to the plaintiffs request for mandatory injunctive relief are moot and we dismiss that part of the appeal relative to those issues Permanent Injunction The intervenors contend that the ALDF and the other plaintiffs do not have standing to seek judicial intervention and injunctive relief against DWF relative to the permit DWF issued to Michael Sandlin for Tony because they do not have a sufficient interest As previously set forth with regard to the plaintiffs request for permanent injunctive relief the plaintiffs alleged that they Warren Triche Jr Brandi J Sutten Jennifer Torquati and Jol Kelleher were Louisiana taxpayers n and residents that John Kelleher was a licensee of DWF and that ALDF was an animal protection organization that had expended organizational funds seeking to protect Tony and challenge the DWF permit that Michael Sandlin was ineligible for a permit at the time that it was issued that Secretary Barham and DWF had or a ministerial duty to deny the permit application and that the issuance and renewal of the permit violated Louisiana state law La R 56 and the Louisiana S 6 31 Administrative Code LAC 76 Thus based on these alleged violations and 115 V 17 While we recognize that there are exceprions to the mootness doctrine given that we have considered herein the trial court order for a permanent injunction against DWF prohibiting it s from issuing new permits to Michael Sandlin we find none of the exceptions applicable to this case See CaYs Meow Inc v City of New Orleans Through Department of Finance 98 0601 La 10 720 So 1186 ll 94 98 20 2d 96 16 the interests asserted the plaintiffs sought and the trial court granted a permanent injunction against Secretary Barham and DWF enjoining them from issuing any or future permits to Michael Sandiin It is well that a taxpayer has the right to seek judicial review of acts settled of public servants that are alleged to have been aontrary to law unconstitutional or illegally confected Bunge North America Inc v Board of Commerce and Industry and Louisiana Department of Economic Development 2007 1746 La App l Cir 5 991 So 511 523 writ denied 2008 La 08 2 2d 1594 08 21 11 996 So 1106 Municipal Employees Retirement System 676 2d 2d So at 837 Additionally our jurisprudence also recognizes the right of a taxpayer to enjoin unlawful action by a public body Bunge North America Inc 991 So at 523 A taYpayer may resort to judicial authority to restrain public 2d servants from transcending their lawful powers or violating their legal duties in any unauthorized mode that will increase the burden of taxation or otherwise unjustly affect the taxpayer ar his properiy Id The fact that the taxpayer sinterest may be small and insusceptible of accurate determination is not sufficient to deprive him of that right Id Thus when a taxpayer seeks to restrain action by a public body he is afforded a right of action upon a mere showing of an interest however small and indeterminable Municipal Employees Retirement System 676 So at 2d 837 cf League of Wome Voters of New Orleans v City of New Orleans 381 2d So 441 446 La 1980 holding that a taacpayer attempting to compel the 47 performance of a public duty by a public entity is required to demonstrate a special or particular interest distinct from that of the public at large With these precepts in mind we do not find any error in the trial court s determination that plaintiffs Triche Sutten Torquati and Kelleher had standing and a right of action to bring this suit for permanent injunctive relie The record reflects that plaintiffs Triche Sutten Torquati and Kelleher are citizens and 17 taxpayers of Louisiana that Kelleher has paid for and held fishing trawling and crabbing licenses from DWF for over five years and has paid to have several boats registered with DWF and that DWF receives monies for its annual budget from the state general fund Thus because plaintiffs Triche Sutten Torquati and s Kelleher pay fees and taxes which are utilized to fund the DWF and its operations we find that these plaintiffs have established sufficient interests to sustain a right of action to seek an injunction to refrain any alleged unlawful conduct by the DWF including the issuance of any future permits to Michael Sandlin for the possession of Tony which may be unlawful Accordingly that part of the November 17 20ll judgment of the trial court overruling DWF peremptory exception raising s the objection of no right of action as to plaintiffs Triche Sutten Torquati and Keller is affirmed However based on the record before us we do not find that plaintiff ALDF has alleged and proven sufficient interest to sustain a right of action seeking an injunction against any unlawful conduct by DWF The evidence in the record establishes that ALDF is a national non organization of attorneys and profit supporting members specializing in the just treaiment of animals within our legal system In addition to ALDF legal advocacy it engages in extensive media s campaigns to raise public awareness of animal cruelty and abuse With regard to this case ALDF has expended significant organizational resources in publicizing and participating in the campaign to free Tony the Tiger from Tiger Truck Stop which included countless hours spent researching and drafting the petition in this matter and time money and other resources communicating Tony story to s the public through the media While the efforts of ALDF with regard to the protection of animals from cruelty and abuse are certainly commendable its 18 Based on our conclusion herein that plaintiffs Sutten and Torquati have proven sufficient interests for standing as ta we need not address whether they have proven sufficient cpayers interests for standing due to aesthetic injuries 18 spending of organizational resources seeking to protect Tony and challenge the permit issued by DWF does not confer upon ALDF a real and actual interest or a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake in this action for an injunction against DWF for alleged unlawful conduct See La C art 681 Accordingly P that part of the November 17 2011 judgment of the trial court overruling the s DWF peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action as to plaintiff ALDF is reversed Lastly we must determine the propriety of the trial court decision to grant s permanent injunctive relief enjoining DWF from alleged unlawful conduct i e issuing an unlawful permit to Michael Sandlin relative to the possession of Tony In the trial court oral reasons for judgment the trial court found that Michael s Sandlin did not legally own or possess Tony on August 15 2006 that although Michael Sandlin as an individual could apply for a permit he was not the owner of Tony and that neither Michael Sandlin nor his designees lived on the premises of Tiger Truck Stop where Tony was kept Based on these factual fmdings the trial court concluded that Michael Sandlin did not meet the legal requirements set forth by DWF in order to be grandfathered and issued a permit far the possession of Tony See LAC 76 2 and 4 Thus a permanent injunction was 1 H 115 V granted enjoining DWF from issuing a permit to Michael Sandlin to possess Tony at Tiger Truck Stop Considering the evidence in the record we find that the trial court findings s in this regard are reasonably supported by the record and are not clearly wrong Furthermore based on these factual findings we find no enor in the trial court s legal conclusion that Michael Sandlin did not meet the legal requirements for a Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadruped Big Exotic Cats and Non Primate Human Permit and that permanent injunctive relief enjoining DWF from issuing Michael Sandlin future permits relative to the possession of Tony at Tiger Truck Stop was 19 warranted The record establishes that on August 15 2006 Tony was not owned by Michael Sandlin rather he was owned by Tiger Truck Stop Additionally on August 15 2006 the ownership and possession of Tony by Tiger Truck Stop and the possession by Michael Sandlin in Iberville Parish was in violation of a local ordinance and thus illegal Although that local ordinance was amended in 2009 retroactive to August 15 2006 the amendment to the ordinance did not change the fact that on August 15 2006 neither Tiger Truck Stop nor Michael Sandlin legally possessed or legally owned Tony Only an individual who legally possessed an exotic cat such as a tiger and who could prove legal ownership of that exotic cat is entitled to a permit far that cat See LAC 76 Accardingly that 1 H V115 part of the judgment of the trial court granting a final injunction against permanent DWF enjoining it from issuing any new permits to Michael Sandlin and Tiger or Truck Stop for the tiger Tony microchip 477E201A4C now located at Tiger Truck Stop in Iberville Parish is affirmed CONCLUSION For all of the above and foregoing reasons we grant the motion to strike we dismiss the appeal in part as moot and we affirm in part and reverse in part the November 17 2o11 judgment ofthe trial court All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellants Michael Sandlin and Tiger Truck Stop Ina MOTION TO STRIKE GRANTED APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART AS MOOT JUDGMENT REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART 19 The standard of review for the issuance of a permanent injunction is the manifest error standard of review Bayou Terrace Estates Home Owner Ass s nInc v Stuntz 2011 1886 La App 1 Cir 7I10 97 So 589 593 12 3d 20
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.
