Larry E. Clark, President, L&M Hair Care Products, Inc. VS Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development, Secretary, Frank Denton & James M. Doushay Real Estate Administrator
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NLTMBER 2013 CA 371 LARRY E CLARK ET aL VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT Judgment Rendered NOV 0 8 2013 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket Number 425 690 Honorable Janice Clark Judge 1e t r Larry E Appellant Plaintiff In Proper Person Clark Atlanta GA Counsel for Mobley Lafargue Shreveport LA Appellee ant Defen and State of Louisiana Charles McBride through the Department of Transportation and Development Julie Baton Rouge LA BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND DRAKE JJ GUIDRY J Larry E Clark a former landowner whose land in Shreveport Louisiana was expropriated by the State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development DOTD for the construction of Interstate 49 appeals a December 10 2012 judgment wherein the trial court dismicsed his 129 petition with page prejudice by sustaining peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no right of action no cause of action and res judicata A multitude of suits have been filed regarding the expropriation since the DOTD first commenced the proceedings in 1986 A more detailed history of this matter and those proceedings can be found in our prior unpublished decision Clark v Louisiana De of Transportation artment and Development 07 La App lst Cir 52008 WL 2065248 1364 08 2 On appeal Mr Clark raises two assignments of error ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 The Trial Court erred by considering only Art 2002 for nullity when the judgment validity is based solely upon two absolutely s void and vacated federal judgments by granting the exceptions and dismissing the suit by the judgment signed on December 10 2012 especially since the petition motions and rules sought nullity under other state and federal laws by not granting all rules filed for nullity when no dilatory exception was filed to the rules and by not granting summary judgment declinatory exception was filed to it when no ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 2 The Trial Court erred by denying the petition and the rules far nullity when they alleged it would be unconscientious and inequitable to continue the enforcement of the judgment when a 1 The caption ofthe petition states Plaintiffs Petition to Declare Void This Court Order Issued on October 31 s 2005 Its Judgment Issued on September 11 2006 To Declaze Void for Lack of Jurisdiction ETC The 7udgment Issued in Suit 363 lst JDC of Caddo 679 Parish To Declare Absolutely Void All Proceedings in Suits 325 325 511 512 and 328 Filed in the lst JDC of Caddo Pazish For Relief on Exceptions of 772 Res Judicata Mootness and No Cause of Action For There is No Longer Valid Federal Judgmen For the Exceptions And for Federal Civil Rights Violations t 2 The judgment also sustained a declinatory exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction 2 horrendous injusfice was committed as to L an African M American corporation in that it was denied to be named a defendant and paid compensation to its recorded lease whereas White corporations were named as defendants and paid compensation as to their recorded leases For the following reasons we fmd that the trial court properly sustained the objection of res judicata in this matter and therefore we will limit our discussion to the propriety of the trial court sjudgment sustaining that objection In the present matter Mr Clark seeks to have all of the previous judgments rendered by Louisiana state and federal courts declared null contending in part that the federal court judgments dismissing his federal complaints were not dismissed with prejudice and therefore cannot serve to support an objection of res judicata to current proceedings In Tavlar v Sture 553 U 880 892 128 S 2161 2171 171 L ll S Ct 2d Ed 155 2008 the United States Supreme Court provided the following explanation of the operation of res judicata in federal courts The preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue preclusion which are collectively referred to as res judicata Under the doctrine of claim preclusion a final judgment forecloses successive litigation of the very same claim whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit Issue preclusion in contrast bars successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim By preclud parties ing from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate these two doctrines protect against the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits conserv judicial resources e and foste rreliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility ofinconsistent decisions Footnote and citations omitted A court power to decide a case is independent of whether its decision is correct s which is why even an erroneous judgment is entitled to res judicata effect Put differently a jurisdictionally proper but substantively incorrect judicial decision is not ultra vires Citv of Arlington Tex v C F 2d Ed L2013 3 S U 133 S 1863 1869 Ct As observed by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its unpublished decision in Clark v Pena 471 Fed Appx 398 398 Sth Cir 99 emphasis 2012 added Clark sued the heads of various federal and state agencies in 1996 in an attempt to compel the United States Department of Transportation to withhold all federal highway construction funds for Interstate 49 from the State of Louisiana and to compel the Louisiana Department of Transportation to depnsit into the registry of the court a sum of money equal to his alleged leasehold advantage in a property allegedly expropriated by the State Department The Appellees successfully moved the district court to dismiss Clark complaint s under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and the district court dismissed Clark claims with prejudice and entered judgment for the s Appellees in 1997 After the district court denied Clark motion for s reconsideration Clark appealed In 1999 this court dismissed his appeal as frivolous and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and imposed sanctions on Clark including a sanction to be paid directly to the Appellees Through 2002 the district court docket reflected s activity related to the Appellees garnishment of funds belonging to Clark income to pay this sanction Between 2002 and 2010 no documents were filed in the district court In 2010 Clark moved the district court to set aside the judgment it entered in 1997 claiming that the district court judgment s should be declared void for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction The district court denied this motion and then denied Clark Rule 59 s motion explaining it appears that Plaintiff s motivation in attempting to void and upset this Court previous February 21 1997 or s judgment is to collaterally attack the imposition of significant sanctions levied by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals This Court cannot and will not interfere with the sanctions imposed by the Fifth Circuit Clark appeals On appeal Clark realistically raises one issue far our review whether the district court abused it discretion by denying Clark Rule 60 motion s b Clark asserts that this court should void the district court 1997 s judgment because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review his complaint The Appellees respond that Clark should have raised the arguments he raises now in his direct appeal Construing his pro se brief liberally Clark raises no argument that entitles him to relie We AFFIRM and DISMISS his appeal Our review of the record before us confirms these findings of the United States Fifth Circuit that the prior federal judgments were not only valid but serve to bar further litigation based on res judicata 4 In regards to the state court proceedings we likewise find that Mr Clark is seeking the same relief that was previously rejected by the trial court in this matter and affirmed by our court on appeal See Clark 2008 WL 2065248 Thus considering the record before us the state law of res judicata as provided in La S 4231 R 13 and jurisprudence interpreting the same we find no error of law ar abuse of discretion by the trial court Accordingly we affirm the trial court s judgment by summary disposition in accardance with Uniform Rules of Courts Appeal Rule 2 56 and 7 All costs associated with this appeal are 2A 16 assessed against the appellant Larry E Clark AFFIRMED 5
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.
