Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 1, 2013; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Defendants appeal a judgment reinstating Plaintiffs as commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Lafayette (HACL) and declaring Defendant Joey Durel in contempt of court for removing them. On August 27, 2010, Durel removed Plaintiffs—John Freeman, Joseph Dennis, and Leon Simmons—for "neglect of duty," citing irregularities in HACL's audited financial reports. Plaintiffs appealed to the Lafayette City-Parish Council, which upheld their removal. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a petition in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court to challenge their removals and prevent Durel from appointing new commissioners. The trial court reversed the removal on October 12, 2010, deeming Durel's actions arbitrary, and reinstated the Plaintiffs, a judgment that became final as neither party appealed.
On October 26, 2010, the reinstated commissioners held a special meeting, during which they allegedly excluded the public from part of the proceedings. On November 19, 2010, Durel issued a new removal letter citing "neglect of duty" and "misconduct in office" for this exclusion and other violations of the Louisiana Open Meetings Law. The Council affirmed this removal on March 1, 2011, but Plaintiffs did not file a separate appeal; instead, they filed a motion for contempt against Durel in the original suit, seeking reinstatement and a stay of the November removal order.
A hearing on a motion was originally set for March 11, 2011, but was rescheduled due to the failure to serve the Defendants. The Defendants filed a Motion for Continuance and/or Stay, arguing improper service and noncompliance by the Plaintiffs with civil rules regarding case filing. They also submitted a Motion to Dismiss based on these alleged failures, which was denied without a hearing. Additionally, a dilatory exception for 'Improper Cumulation of Actions' was filed and subsequently denied.
On March 29, 2011, the Plaintiffs submitted a 'Petition for Appeal' related to a Lafayette City Council decision, assigned a new docket number and judge. On March 31, 2011, the trial court signed an ex parte order consolidating this new suit with an earlier case before the Defendants were served or filed responses. Notably, on March 28, 2011, HUD issued a notice of default to the HACL. A hearing for the consolidated cases was scheduled for October 31, 2011.
Defendants presented a 'Supplemental Brief' on October 20, 2011, raising jurisdictional issues regarding a prior petition and challenging the consolidation due to the HUD takeover. A 'Peremptory Exception of Failure to Join Indispensable Party' was filed on October 25, 2011, which was denied without a hearing. During the October 31 hearing, the trial court did not address the procedural objections but ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs for reinstatement. Durel was found in contempt of court, fined $258, and sentenced to fifteen days in jail, suspended upon completing eight hours of community service.
The Plaintiffs' rights regarding the removal of HACL commissioners are protected under La.R.S. 40:587, which outlines the grounds and procedures for removal by the chief elected official or the governing body, including the requirement for notice and the opportunity for a hearing.
A request for a hearing triggers a mandatory hearing by the municipality or parish governing body at least ten days after the request. The commissioner may attend the hearing in person or through counsel, and the governing body will decide whether to uphold the removal. If the removal is not upheld, the commissioner retains their position. In this case, Durel notified the Plaintiffs on November 19, 2010, and a hearing was held on March 1, 2011, regarding Durel's action to remove the Plaintiffs. The trial court acts as a judicial review body and cannot replace the governing body's judgment unless it finds the action arbitrary or capricious. It applies the manifest error standard for factual review and the arbitrary and capricious test for the conclusions and discretion of the administrative tribunal. The trial court determined the Council's decision to affirm Durel's second removal was improper and reversed it. The appellate review focuses on whether the trial judge's conclusion was reasonable based on the evidence presented.
The appeal centers on the trial court's reinstatement of three HACL commissioners and Durel's contempt of court for their second removal. The Plaintiffs were originally removed for neglect of duty on August 27, 2010, but reinstated by court order on October 27, 2010, which was unappealed and thus final. Durel issued a second removal letter on November 19, 2010, citing neglect of duty and misconduct related to actions during an October 26, 2010 meeting. Specific allegations included failure to call for a vote before entering an Executive Session and not complying with statutory requirements for such a session under the Open Meetings Law, which mandates agenda disclosure and twenty-four hours' notice to affected individuals.
The Executive Session was not followed by a vote to return to open session, as required by La. R.S. 42:16. In Louisiana, a mayor's discretion is protected unless there is clear evidence of illegality or abuse, presuming validity of actions taken. The appeal concerns whether substantial evidence justified Durel's removal of the Plaintiffs from their commissioner positions on November 19, 2010. The 'Minutes Of Special Board Meeting Of The Housing Authority Of The City Of Lafayette' dated October 26, 2010, indicate only Plaintiffs Freeman, Dennis, and Simmons were present, with conflicting testimonies about whether an executive session actually occurred. The minutes show an executive session was documented, but lacked any record of a vote by the Plaintiffs regarding its necessity or on returning to open session. Testimony from State Representative Ricky Hardy at the March 1, 2011 Council meeting noted a motion for an executive session was made, but he could not confirm a vote took place. Plaintiffs Simmons, Freeman, and Dennis testified that no formal vote occurred to enter the executive session. However, the minutes indicate non-board members left the room for fifteen to thirty minutes, suggesting that an executive session did happen. Evidence shows the Plaintiffs did not vote before entering the executive session, violating La.R.S. 42:16, which supports their removal for 'neglect of duty' and 'misconduct in office.' Although Plaintiffs did not vote to return to open session, the law does not mandate such a vote.
Plaintiffs are found not to have violated La.R.S. 42:16 regarding a specific matter, but they did not adhere to the personnel issue notification requirements of La.R.S. 42:17 during the October 26, 2010 board meeting. Despite personnel issues being on the agenda, there was conflicting evidence regarding whether they were discussed. The board did not provide the required 24-hours’ written notice to the affected individuals. This non-compliance supports the Council’s decision to affirm the removal of Plaintiffs from their positions for 'neglect of duty' and 'misconduct in office,' as communicated in Durel’s November 19, 2010 letter citing La.R.S. 40:587. Although the District Attorney's suit against Plaintiffs for violating the Louisiana Open Meetings Law was dismissed, Plaintiffs' argument that this barred Durel from seeking affirmation of their removal is deemed meritless, as they initiated a hearing request themselves. The case Bailey v. Department of Public Safety is referenced to support the rationale that misconduct can be found even if criminal charges result in acquittal. Ultimately, Plaintiffs are determined to have violated the statutes by not voting before entering executive session and failing to provide timely notice, leading to the conclusion that the trial court's reinstatement of Plaintiffs as commissioners was unreasonable, resulting in a reversal of that decision.
Defendants argue that the trial court incorrectly held Durel in contempt and imposed excessive sanctions. Plaintiffs assert the trial court's ruling was justified, citing Durel's alleged disobedience of a judgment from October 27, 2010, which ordered the reinstatement of specific individuals as commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Lafayette (HACL). To establish constructive contempt, it must be shown that the individual knowingly and intentionally violated a court order without justification. Prior case law indicates a litigant cannot be held in contempt unless they willfully disobey a direct court order. The October 27, 2010 judgment reinstated the Plaintiffs as commissioners, and although signed after a board meeting, the court's minute entry directed immediate reinstatement. Evidence shows the Plaintiffs participated in the October 26, 2010, meeting, confirming their reinstatement. Durel's subsequent removal of the Plaintiffs referenced 'neglect of duty' and 'misconduct,' but the record does not support a willful disobedience of the court order, leading to the conclusion that the contempt finding was erroneous and should be reversed.
In a separate matter, Defendants claim the trial court erred by denying their exception regarding HUD's status as an indispensable party. However, this issue is not reviewed since HUD's takeover of HACL has rendered the Plaintiffs' reinstatement claims moot. Federal preemption, rooted in the Supremacy Clause, nullifies state law conflicting with federal law, particularly in areas like public housing extensively regulated by HUD. HUD's regulations allow it to take control of local housing authorities that default on agreements. In this case, HUD notified Durel and the HACL on March 28, 2011, of a substantial default and assumed control over HACL. HUD subsequently informed the trial court that it appointed a new Board of Commissioners for HACL, asserting that this board is the only entity with authority until HUD relinquishes control.
HUD took control of the Housing Authority of the City of Lafayette (HACL) before the trial court's November 10, 2011 judgment, which reversed the Council's decision affirming the removal of Plaintiffs, Freeman, Dennis, and Simmons. Due to the HUD takeover and the principles of federal preemption, the trial court lacked authority to reinstate the Plaintiffs as commissioners, rendering their claim under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 927 moot and devoid of a viable cause of action. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's reinstatement of the Plaintiffs and its contempt ruling against Defendant Joey Durel regarding their removal. Costs of the appeal were assigned to the Plaintiffs. The record indicates that of the seven commissioners, one resigned, two were dismissed without challenges, and one remained unaffected. Michael Harson, as District Attorney, initiated a "Petition for Enforcement of the Provisions of the Open Meetings Law" against the Plaintiffs, which was assigned to Judge Arthur Planchan. The October 15, 2010 minute entry noted Durel's removal of certain commissioners as arbitrary and capricious, resulting in their reinstatement, which was later overruled by the November 10, 2011 judgment. The appellate decision cited precedents indicating that actions may become moot due to federal rulings.
