Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by a property owner against the State of Louisiana concerning compensation for the commandeering of his land near the 17th Street Canal under the authority of Executive Order No. KBB 2006-6. The plaintiff filed his lawsuit on May 9, 2013, alleging a taking of his property without compensation, but the trial court dismissed it as prescribed under Louisiana law, given that it was filed more than three years after the plaintiff became aware of the commandeering in February 2006. The State's exceptions, particularly on the grounds of prescription, were upheld, and the plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal, the plaintiff argued against the trial court's findings regarding the prescription period and the necessity of a formal 'taking' finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing the plaintiff's awareness of the commandeering and rejecting his claim that the prescription period started following a 2013 ruling in a separate case. The court also found that the plaintiff's prior interventions in related lawsuits did not interrupt the prescription period due to a lack of justiciable interest. The court's decision underscores the legal distinction between 'commandeering' and 'taking,' with statutory provisions ensuring compensation for commandeered property. All costs of the appeal were assigned to the plaintiff.
Legal Issues Addressed
Burden of Proof in Prescription Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that when prescription is apparent from the pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the action has not prescribed.
Reasoning: The burden of proof for a peremptory exception raising the defense of prescription lies with the party asserting the exception. If the prescription is apparent from the pleadings, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the action has not prescribed.
Commandeering as a Statutory Takingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that commandeering under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act constitutes a statutory taking, entitling landowners to compensation.
Reasoning: La. R.S. 29:730(E), (F), and (G) supports the view that commandeering constitutes a statutory taking.
Governmental Acquisition of Prescriptive Titlesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the trial court's ruling on prescription did not address the title to the property, as the State's rights were based on statutory compliance rather than prescriptive acquisition.
Reasoning: The trial court only ruled that LaBruzzo's action for compensation had prescribed and did not address the title to the property.
Intervention and Prescriptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the plaintiff's interventions in prior lawsuits did not interrupt the prescription period for his current claims, as they lacked a justiciable interest.
Reasoning: Mr. LaBruzzo's intervention in the Balfore Trust case was dismissed on the merits due to a lack of ownership interest in the Trust property, which did not affect the prescription period for his claims in the current suit.
Prescription of Claims Against the Statesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that actions for compensation for property commandeered by the state are subject to a three-year prescriptive period commencing from the date of discovery of the commandeering.
Reasoning: Actions for compensation for property taken by state entities are subject to a three-year prescriptive period, commencing from the date of discovery of the taking.