MARJORIE ESMAN Vs. LEON A. CANNIZZARO, JR.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MARJORIE ESMAN * VERSUS NO. 2017-CA-0639 * COURT OF APPEAL LEON A. CANNIZZARO, JR. * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2017-04661, DIVISION “D” Honorable Nakisha Ervin-Knott, JUDGE ****** Judge Terri F. Love ****** (Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Tiffany G. Chase, Judge Marion F. Edwards, Pro Tempore) Bruce Hamilton ACLU FOUNDATION OF LA. P.O. BOX 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 and Vincent J. Booth BOOTH & BOOTH, APLC 138 North Cortez Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE David Fink THE LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD L. CHARBONNET, JR., A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION One Canal Place, 365 Canal Street, Suite 1155 New Orleans, LA 70112 and J. Edward McAuliffe Assistant District Attorney Donna Andrieu Assistant District Attorney Scott G. Vincent Assistant District Attorney DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ORLEANS PARISH 619 South White Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT DISMISSED AS MOOT December 20, 2017 The instant appeal came before this Court after the trial court partially granted a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking production of public records. The trial court ordered Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., in his official capacity as Orleans Parish District Attorney, (“District Attorney”), to produce the requested public records Majorie Esman (“Ms. Esman”) requested; however, the trial court limited the request to a five-year time frame. During the pendency of the instant appeal, Ms. Esman filed in the trial court a motion to dismiss her petition for a writ of mandamus. The trial court signed the order granting the motion to dismiss on December 12, 2017. Considering the trial court’s granting of the motion to dismiss, the present appeal before this Court is now moot. Therefore, on this Court’s own motion, we dismiss the present appeal as moot. DISMISSED AS MOOT 1

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.