Opinion
NUMBER 2016 CW 1473
09-15-2017
LLOYD ANDEL v. CITY OF MANDEVILLE
C. Theodore Alpaugh, III New Orleans, LA Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, Lloyd Andel Michael F. Weiner Covington, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, City of Mandeville
Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana
Docket Number 2015-11827
Honorable August J. Hand, Judge Presiding
C. Theodore Alpaugh, III
New Orleans, LA Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant,
Lloyd Andel Michael F. Weiner
Covington, LA Counsel for Defendant/Appellee,
City of Mandeville BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McDONALD, AND CHUTZ, JJ. WHIPPLE, C.J.
Plaintiff-appellant, Lloyd Andel, a former employee of the Mandeville Police Department, appeals a judgment of the district court affirming a discovery ruling of a civil service board. For the following reasons, we convert plaintiff's appeal to an application for supervisory writs and deny the requested relief.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Lloyd Andel was employed as a police officer with the City of Mandeville ("the City") until his termination on April 24, 2013, for alleged violations of the police department's rules and regulations. Thereafter, Andel filed an appeal of his termination with the Mandeville Municipal Police Employees' Civil Service Board ("the Board").
Prior to his hearing before the Board, Andel requested that the Board provide him with "[a]ll evaluations of all members of the Mandeville Police Department from January 1, 2009 through the date of response." The City objected to the request, and the Board subsequently set a special meeting to address Andel's document request and the City's objections.
Following the special meeting, the Board ordered the City to provide "[a]ny and all documents ... relating to performance improvements plan(s) of members of the Mandeville Police Department" and "[a]ll evaluations of all members of the Mandeville Police Department between the dates of January 1, 2011 and April 24, 2013." However, all "personally-identifying [sic] information," including the employees' names, was to be redacted from the employees' evaluations. The City filed a motion for the Board to reconsider its ruling regarding the disclosure of the employees' evaluations, which the Board denied. Thereafter, the parties executed a protective order pertaining to the disclosed evaluations, stating that the documents would be available for viewing at City Hall and further maintaining, in accordance with the Board's order, that all "personally-identifying information" in the employees' evaluations would be redacted.
Andel then filed a second motion with the Board, specifically seeking the "personally-identifying information" that was redacted from the employees' evaluations. Andel argued that this information was needed because it would demonstrate "disparate treatment [with]in the Mandeville Police Department" that "goes directly to the issue of whether [Andel] was terminated in good faith and for just cause." Following an advertised public hearing, the Board denied Andel's second motion on April 22, 2015.
On May 7, 2015, Andel filed a petition for appeal with the district court, seeking review of the April 22, 2015 order of the Board. On May 10, 2016, the district court issued its ruling, upholding the order of the Board and denying Andel's request for the redacted employees' names. Andel then filed the instant appeal with this court, seeking appellate review of the district court's May 10, 2016 ruling.
ANALYSIS
Article X of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 governs public officials and employees and establishes various civil service systems. In particular, Part 2, § 16 of Article X establishes fire and police civil service systems. Applicable herein, Article X, Part 2, § 16 is supplemented by LSA-R.S. 33:2531, et seq., governing "The Fire and Police Civil Service Law for Small Municipalities and for Parishes and Fire Protection Districts." LSA-R.S. 33:2532. These statutes set forth the compositions and duties of fire and police civil service boards. LSA-R.S. 33:2536; LSA-R.S. 33:2537; LSA-R.S. 33:2538.
A classified fire or police employee who is subject to the provisions of LSA-R.S. 33:2531, et seq., may appeal to the applicable civil service board if he feels that he has been discharged or subjected to corrective or disciplinary action without just cause, and the board shall grant to the employee a hearing and investigation. LSA-R.S. 33:2561(A). The board has complete charge of the hearing and investigation and may conduct them in any manner the board deems advisable, without prejudice to any person or party thereto. LSA-R.S. 33:2561(B)(3). After an investigation, the board may affirm the action of the appointing authority, or order reinstatement or reemployment if the board finds that the action was not taken in good faith for cause. LSA-R.S. 33:2561(C)(1). An employee who is dissatisfied with the decision of the board may appeal the board's decision to the district court for the parish where the board is domiciled. LSA-R.S. 33:2561(E). Louisiana Revised Statute 33:2561(E) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny employee under classified service and any appointing authority may appeal from any decision of the board or from any action taken by the board [...] which is prejudicial to the employee or appointing authority."
However, it is well-established that this court has a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction on its own motion, even when the issue is not raised by the litigants. Monterrey Center, LLC v. Education Partners, Inc., 2008-0734 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/23/08), 5 So. 3d 225, 228-229. In cases, such as this, where the legislature has vested appellate jurisdiction in the district court, the court of appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction and should convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs. Beck v. City of Baker, 2011-0803 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/10/12), 102 So. 3d 887, 889, n.1, writ denied, 2002-2455 (La. 1/11/13), 107 So. 3d 617. Finding we have no subject matter jurisdiction here, we convert Andel's appeal to an application for supervisory writs.
In Beck, the Baker Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board upheld the city's demotion of a police officer. The officer appealed to the district court and then to this court. We then converted the appeal to an application for supervisory writs, granted the writ in part, and remanded the case to the district court. In converting the appeal to an application for supervisory writs, this court noted:
In Miazza v. City of Mandeville, 10-0304 (La. 5/21/10), 34 So. 3d 849, the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that when, as in this case, the legislature has vested appellate jurisdiction in the district court, the court of appeal lacks appellate jurisdiction, and should convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs. The supreme court gave a similar direction to this court in Meiners v. St. Tammany Fire Protection Dist. # 4 Bd. of Com'rs, 10-0912 (La. 6/25/10), 38 So. 3d 359. Since these cases, this court has followed this procedure in several other cases, including Dwyer v. West Feliciana Fire Protection Dist. No. 1 Civil Service Bd., 11-1096 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/21/11), 80 So. 3d 1229; McGee v. St. Tammany Parish Fire Protection Dist. No. 1, 10-1894 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/6/11) (unpublished); and Baton Rouge Police Dept. v. O'Malley, 10-1386 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/25/11), 64 So. 3d 773.
Beck, 102 So. 3d at 889, n.1.
As we have converted the appeal to an application for supervisory writs, we must next determine if the factors set forth in Herlitz Construction Company, Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So. 2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), are satisfied. In Herlitz, the Louisiana Supreme Court directed that appellate courts should consider an application for supervisory writs under their supervisory jurisdiction, even though relief may be ultimately available to the applicant on appeal, in such particular circumstances where the trial court ruling was arguably incorrect, a reversal would terminate the litigation (in whole or in part), and there was no dispute of fact to be resolved.
In the instant case, the issue presented is a discovery issue. This court, applying the rationale provided by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Herlitz, generally declines to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to consider discovery disputes. Patrick v. Patrick, 2011-1142 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/2/12) (unpublished) (appeal converted to supervisory writ, writ then denied as Herlitz factors not met), citing RCS Gaming, Inc. v. State Through Louisiana Gaming Control Bd., 97-2321 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/19/97), 705 So. 2d 1122 (per curiam).
Here, granting the writ application (and ordering the requested relief) will not terminate the litigation, and we see no appropriate basis for asserting our supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction to address the district court's May 10, 2016 judgment.
APPEAL CONVERTED TO SUPERVISORY WRIT; WRIT DENIED.