Opinion
2018 CA 1142
04-23-2019
LARRY REED v. LOUISIANA HORTICULTURE COMMISSION AND LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Larry Reed Shreveport, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant, In Proper Person Kathy L. Torregano E. John Litchfield New Orleans, Louisiana Counsel for Defendants/Appellees, Louisiana Horticulture Commission and Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
Docket No. C444061 Honorable Janice Clark, Judge Presiding Larry Reed
Shreveport, Louisiana Plaintiff/Appellant,
In Proper Person Kathy L. Torregano
E. John Litchfield
New Orleans, Louisiana Counsel for Defendants/Appellees,
Louisiana Horticulture Commission and
Louisiana Department of Agriculture and
Forestry BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. McCLENDON, J.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, seeks review of a judgment, dated April 12, 2018, that sets forth the terms of a consent agreement and dismisses his request for a writ of mandamus and claim for damages. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment in part to the extent that it dismissed plaintiff's claim for damages. We also vacate the trial court's December 4, 2017 order, denying the plaintiff's petition for damages "on the showing made." The remainder of the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Finally, the plaintiff's "Motion and Order for Amendment to Table of Authorities and Certified Letter from Appellees" is denied as to all remaining relief requested.
DISCUSSION
Mandamus
This litigation began in 1997 when Mr. Larry Reed filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (sued as the Louisiana Horticulture Commission). Mr. Reed sought to compel the Department to re-issue his landscape contractor's license following the suspension of his license in 1988. The suit remained relatively quiet for the majority of the next eighteen years.
Most recently, on December 4, 2017, this matter came before the trial court on Mr. Reed's "Memorandum in Support of Writ of Mandamus, Opposition to Deposition, Louisiana State Bar Violation and ABA Violation" and the Department's exception of no cause of action. After discussions with the court, the parties reached a compromise to resolve the issue concerning the issuance of a landscape contractor's license to Mr. Reed. The Department agreed to provide horticultural license applications to Mr. Reed for the period December 4, 2017 through February 1, 2018 and from February 1, 2018 through January 31, 2019 and further agreed to waive all fees involved with the application process and to issue licenses for both time periods. Mr. Reed agreed to complete and return the license applications to the Department in order to receive a license for each of those periods.
The terms of the consent agreement are memorialized in a judgment signed on April 12, 2018. Mr. Reed filed a "Petition and Order for Devolutive Appeal For Res Judicata, Duress, Jurisdiction, Louisiana Bar Violations and ABA Violations" on June 5, 2018 in which he stated his desire to appeal devolutively from the April 12, 2018 judgment.
As the title suggests, Mr. Reed raised several issues in this pleading beyond simply seeking a devolutive appeal. Similarly, in his appellate brief, Mr. Reed makes arguments concerning res judicata, duress, and violations of "horticulture law," among others. To the extent Mr. Reed asks this court to resolve issues not decided by the trial court, we decline to do so. As a general rule, appellate courts will not consider issues that were not raised in the pleadings, were not addressed by the trial court, or are raised for the first time on appeal. Stewart v. Livingston Parish School Bd., 07-1881 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/2/08), 991 So.2d 469, 474. Mr. Reed also appears to challenge judgments rendered in 2016; however, there are no appeals pending before this court concerning these judgments.
The transcript from the December 4, 2017 hearing demonstrates that Mr. Reed understood and consented to the terms of the agreement. Counsel for the Department recited the proposed terms of the agreement on the record. The trial court then confirmed that Mr. Reed heard and understood:
Court: All Right. You've heard the sum of the stipulation read into the record; have you not, Mr. Reed?
Mr. Reed: Yes, ma'am, I think I heard her say, settlement all of the matters.
Court: Before the court.
Mr. Reed: Before the court.
Court: And this is the matter before the court.
Mr. Reed: Okay.
Counsel for the Department then requested, on the record, that Mr. Reed submit a license renewal form to the Department for record-keeping purposes. The court again confirmed that Mr. Reed heard, understood, and agreed with the addendum to the agreement.
A compromise is a contract in which the parties, through concessions made by one or more of them, settle a dispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation or other legal relationship. LSA-C.C. art. 3071. It must be made in writing or recited in open court. LSA-C.C. art. 3072. An appeal cannot be taken by a party who confessed judgment in the proceedings in the trial court or who voluntarily and unconditionally acquiesced in a judgment rendered against him. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2085; see also Daffin v. McCool, 09-0785 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/23/09), 30 So.3d 120, 122. A consent judgment is a final judgment as between the parties. Mill Creek Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Manuel, 04-1385 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/10/05), 916 So.2d 268, 269.
A consent judgment may be annulled or rescinded for fraud, duress, or an error of fact or error of the principal cause of the agreement. See M.P.W. v. L.P.W., 13-0366 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/1/13), 136 So.3d 37, 45; Leonard v. Reeves, 11-1009 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/12/12), 82 So.3d 12.50, 1261. See also LSA-C.C. arts. 1948, 1949, 1953, 1959. In his brief to this court, Mr. Reed alleges that he has been threatened by the trial court with sanctions in the past and felt that "the trial court judge would not stop short of finding him in contempt of court and having Appellant jailed in Baton Rouge if he had not agreed to the consent agreement that she ordered." However, the record is devoid of any evidence that the trial court "ordered" the parties to reach an agreement or that the court threatened Mr. Reed and/or coerced him in any way to consent to the terms of the agreement. Therefore, we find no merit in Mr. Reed's allegations. Accordingly, Mr. Reed may not appeal from this portion of the April 12, 2018 judgment, and this portion of the judgment is affirmed. Damages
Mr. Reed filed an "Opposition to Judgment and Evidence" on March 27, 2018 and a "2nd Opposition to Judgement [sic] and Evidence" on April 2, 2018; however, in these oppositions, Mr. Reed did not allege that his consent to the agreement was induced by fraud, error, or duress.
In its brief on appeal, the Department requests that Mr. Reed be sanctioned for failure to comply with Rule 2-12.4 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. Mr. Reed's appellate brief does not contain assignments of error, issues presented for review, or a concise prayer for relief, and does not identify the judgment complained of. While the sanction to be imposed for a non-conforming brief is discretionary, this Court routinely considers non-compliant briefs when filed by pro se parties. See Reed v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrrections, 14-1468 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/24/15), 2015 WL 1882725, *1 (unpublished); Sheridan v. Pride & Hope Ministry Family Support Services, 13-1666 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/2/14), 147 So.3d 717, 719. Thus, in light of Mr. Reed's pro se status wherein he is representing himself in this case, we attempt to discern the substance of his arguments and treat them as though properly raised. --------
In addition to setting forth the terms of the parties' consent agreement concerning Mr. Reed's request for a writ of mandamus, the April 12, 2018 judgment also provides:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that no additional legal or procedural matters are before the Court and that this settlement concludes any and all proceedings in the above captioned matter, including but not limited to a writ of mandamus and damages. [Emphasis added.]
Upon our review of the record, we find that Mr. Reed's claim for damages was not properly before the court on December 4, 2017 and was not included in the parties' consent agreement. Therefore, this claim was erroneously dismissed, and this portion of the April 12, 2018 judgment is vacated.
Mr. Reed filed a "Motion for Damages and Amendment to Partial Summary Judgment for Damages" on November 16, 2017. In this document, Mr. Reed set forth allegations of damages he purportedly sustained as a result of the Department's intentional and persistent failure to issue a landscape contractor's license.
During the December 4th hearing, the court asked Mr. Reed if he had any other claims pending, other than one for mandamus for the issuance of a license, and he said yes, he filed a motion for damages. The Department had received a courtesy copy of the pleading but had not yet been formally served, and the court was unaware of the filing. The court responded to Mr. Reed, "I don't have that. All we can settle is this." On April 2, 2018, Mr. Reed objected to the proposed judgment at issue, pointing out that the court acknowledged at the December 4th hearing that it had not received his petition for damages.
On December 4, 2017, the trial court struck through the order filed with Mr. Reed's "Motion for Damages and Amendment to Partial Summary Judgment for Damages" and wrote "denied on showing made." From our review of the pleadings in the record, and considering Mr. Reed is a pro se litigant, we find that Mr. Reed's "Motion for Damages and Amendment to Partial Summary Judgment for Damages" should be treated as a petition for damages. It is well-settled Louisiana law that "[e]very pleading shall be so construed as to do substantial justice." LSA-C.C.P. art. 865; Scott v. Hogan, 17-1716 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/18/18), 255 So.3d 24, 28. Our courts look beyond the caption, style, and form of pleadings to determine from the substance of the pleadings the nature of the proceeding; thus, a pleading is construed for what it really is, not for what it is erroneously called. Thomas v. Bridges, 12-1439 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/28/13), 120 So.3d 338, 341, writ granted, 13-1855 (La. 12/6/13), 129 So.3d 525, and aff'd, 13-1855 (La. 5/7/14), 144 So.3d 1001. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing Mr. Reed's claim for damages in the April 12, 2018 judgment and further erred by dismissing his petition for damages "on showing made." The matter is remanded to the trial court for disposition of Mr. Reed's claim for damages. Motion
On December 20, 2018, Mr. Reed filed a "Motion and Order for Amendment to Table of Authorities and Certified Letter from Appellees" with this court, seeking to amend his brief to correct several citations to legal authorities. Mr. Reed further sought to supplement the appellate record with a certified letter from the Department concerning a 2019 horticulture license renewal application. This court issued an order on January 10, 2019, granting the motion in part to the extent that Mr. Reed sought to amend the Table of Authorities in his brief. All other relief sought was referred to the panel hearing the merits of the appeal.
The remaining relief requested by Mr. Reed concerns issues beyond the scope of this appeal. Furthermore, to the extent that Mr. Reed seeks to supplement the appeal record with evidence not previously considered by the trial court, this court has no jurisdiction to review evidence not in the record on appeal and cannot receive new evidence. Niemann v. Crosby Dev. Co., 11-1337 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/3/12), 92 So.3d 1039, 1044. Therefore, the motion is denied as to all remaining relief requested.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the portion of the April 12, 2018 judgment that dismissed Mr. Reed's claim for damages is vacated, and the December 4, 2017 order denying Mr. Reed's petition for damages "on showing made" is likewise vacated. The case is remanded to the trial court for disposition of Mr. Reed's claim for damages.
The remainder of the April 12, 2018 judgment, which sets forth the terms of the parties' consent agreement, is affirmed.
The costs of this appeal in the amount of $3,393.50 are assessed equally between the parties, with the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (sued as the Louisiana Horticulture Commission) to pay $1,696.75.
JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED. ADDITIONALLY, THE DECEMBER 4, 2017 ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR DAMAGES "ON SHOWING MADE" IS VACATED.
DECEMBER 20, 2018 MOTION AND ORDER FOR AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF AUTHORITIES AND CERTIFIED LETTER FROM APPELLEES DENIED AS TO ALL REMAINING RELIEF REQUESTED.