MENDOZA v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS (2025)

We grant appellant, Harry P. Mendoza's (“Mr. Mendoza”), application for rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing his arguments that this Court erred in 1) applying La. R.S. 49:113 to give the Municipal Police Employees Retirement System's (“MPERS”) the right of reimbursement when none exist; 2) by affirming the trial court's grant in MPERS’ motion for summary judgment; and 3) not addressing whether the MPERS possessed the legal authority to obtain interest under La. R.S. 11:192.

Subsequent to this Court's November 12, 2025 decision, appellant filed an application for rehearing, seeking reconsideration of our decision. First, the appellant is re-urging his arguments that under La. R.S. 49:113 MPERS did not have a right of reimbursement, and the only issue presented on summary judgment was a question of law. We do not find merit in Mr. Mendoza's arguments.

Lastly, Mr. Mendoza asserts that this Court erred in failing to address whether MPERS possessed the legal authority to obtain interest under La. R.S. 11:192. We disagree. The issue of valuation of interest was not properly before this Court because it was not plead in Mr. Mendoza's petition. Moreover, the trial court provided in its February 12, 2024 judgment that:

the motion for summary judgment is also denied with respect to Plaintiff's valuation rate interest claims. Plaintiff is seeking relief for claims that have not been pled in this suit. This Court previously denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend include these claims in this suit. Plaintiff is precluded from requesting relief outside the scope of this suit. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue.

Therefore, this argument is without merit.

For these reasons, we grant a limited rehearing, deny relief, and affirm our original opinion.

LIMITED REHEARING GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; ORIGINAL OPINION AFFIRMED

Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins