PLACE NEAUXLA LLC v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS (2026)

Defendant, the City of New Orleans (“the City”), seeks appellate review of the November 17, 2025 district court judgment granting plaintiff, J'S Place Neauxla's (hereinafter “JPN”), Expedited Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Alternative Writ and ordering the Director of Safety and Permits, or the responsible public officer, to renew JPN's Alcohol Beverage Outlet (“ABO”) license. Finding that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction, we convert the City's appeal to an application for supervisory writs, which we grant. We vacate the November 17, 2025 judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

JPN is a restaurant located at 2005 North Broad Street in New Orleans. On November 11, 2024, the City of New Orleans issued a Notice of Hearing, in Case No. 24- 01676-ZONG, regarding alleged zoning and code ordinance violations by JPN.¹ At the conclusion of a January 9, 2025 administrative hearing, a judgment was rendered against JPN finding it guilty of 14 violations of the Central Zoning Ordinance (“CZO”) and Municipal Code. JPN was fined $14,125 and its Live Entertainment Permit was revoked.

The City avers that the administrative judgment was rendered after JPN was appropriately notified that an administrative hearing would be held regarding the following six alleged violations of: CZO 20.3 JJ relative to Live Entertainment - Secondary Use and Live Performance Venue; CZO 24.4 relative to Sign Permit Required; CZO 24.9A relative to Temporary Signs - General Regulations; CZO 24.9 B relative to Temporary Signs - A-Frame Signs; CZO 20.3 ZZ relative to Restaurants, and CZO 24.9 D relative to Temporary Signs - Banners.

It appears that JPN did not appeal the administrative judgment. Rather, on January 16, 2025, it filed a Verified Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions in the district court, seeking to prevent the City from revoking its occupational license. On the same day, the district court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), preventing the City of New Orleans from revoking JPN's occupational license. Further, the City was ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued preventing the City from taking any action that would result in the revocation of JPN's occupational license. Id. In response, the City filed an Exception of Unauthorized Use of Summary Proceeding.

On January 28, 2025, the district court held a hearing on the City's exception and JPN's request for a preliminary injunction. On February 11, 2025, the district court denied the City's exception. However, the district court granted JPN's preliminary injunction which enjoined and restrained the City from taking any action against JPN pursuant to the allegations asserted in the November 11, 2024 Notice of Violations Case Number 24-01676-ZONG, and from taking any action against JPN pursuant to the January 14, 2025 administrative judgment. On February 24, 2025, the City filed a Motion for New Trial on JPN's request for an injunction. The district court denied the motion the following month.

In the spring of 2025, the City moved to set the permanent injunction for trial, which was eventually set for September 30, 2025. JPN filed an Expedited Rule for Contempt in August 2025, alleging the City did not renew its ABO license, and the denial was based upon the zoning violations that were the subject of the preliminary injunction. JPN requested that the district court reinstate its ABO license. On August 21, 2025, the district court issued a judgment granting the JPN's Rule for Contempt, but reasoned that the court did not have jurisdiction over JBN's ABO license because jurisdiction rested solely with the Alcohol Beverage Control Board, pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes 26:302 and 26:303.

The following month JPN filed an expedited motion for status conference, noting that the trial on the permanent injunction was approaching but the City had outstanding discovery due. A conference was set for September 19, 2025. The day prior to the status conference, the City filed a motion for protective order, requesting a protective order over any discovery and seeking to confine the district court's review of the January 16, 2025 administrative judgment to the administrative record. The record reflects that the trial on the permanent injunction was never held.

On November 14, 2025, JPN filed an Expedited Writ of Mandamus and Alternative Writ, seeking to compel the City to renew JPN's ABO license. The district court granted both writs on November 17, 2025, and ordered “that the Director of Safety and Permits or whichever public officer is responsible for the renewal of [ABO] licenses renew the [ABO] license of [JPN] immediately.”² On December 16, 2025, the City filed a Motion for Suspensive Appeal, which the district court denied and sua sponte, converted the request into a motion for a devolutive appeal. The City filed an application for supervisory writs with this Court, which was denied on February 20, 2026.³ Thereafter, the City filed a supervisory writ regarding the denial of a suspensive appeal with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was also denied.⁴

Jurisdiction

Before addressing the merits of the appeal, we must first address whether we have jurisdiction. The judgment the City seeks appellate review of is not a final judgment. “Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue.” Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. in Int. of A.Z.L. v. Louis, 25-423, p. 2 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/16/26), 430 So.3d 570, 572.

A judgment “may be interlocutory or final.” La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1841(A). “A judgment that determines the merits in whole is a final judgment.” La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1841(B)(1). An interlocutory judgment is one that “grants a judgment or summary judgment, or sustains an exception in part, as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories by or against a party, whether in an original demand, reconventional demand, cross-claim, third-party claim, or intervention,” unless otherwise provided by law. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1915(C). Nevertheless, “[a] judgment that determines the merits in part may be a partial final judgment in accordance with Article 1915(A) or an interlocutory judgment in accordance with Article 1915(C).” La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1841(B)(2).

Article 2083 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure sets forth what judgments are appropriate for appeal and provides in pertinent part:

A. A final judgment is appealable in all causes in which appeals are given by law, whether rendered after hearing, by default, or by reformation under Article 1814.

B. A partial final judgment rendered in accordance with Article 1915(A) is appealable in all causes in which appeals are given by law. Other partial final judgments are appealable only when expressly provided by law.

C. An interlocutory judgment is appealable only when expressly provided by law.

As noted above, JPN's Verified Petition sought a TRO as well as preliminary injunctive and permanent injunctive relief against the City. The district court granted JPN a preliminary injunction and the instant appeal pertains to the district court's issuance of a Writ of Mandamus and Alternative Writ to the City. This leaves JPN's claim for a permanent injunction regarding its occupational license pending in the district court. Therefore, the judgment at issue— granting the writ of mandamus and alternative writ— is not final and appealable pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2083. See also Long v. Robichaux, 24-0213, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/20/24), 405 So.3d 654, 656-57. It is an interlocutory judgment.

An application for supervisory writs is the proper procedural vehicle to contest an interlocutory judgment pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2201. A supervisory writ application that challenges a district court's interlocutory judgment must be filed within 30 days of the notice of judgment. Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rules 4-2 and 4-3. In the instant matter, the City filed its Motion for Suspensive Appeal within 30 days of the district court rendering its November 17, 2025 order. When confronted with the lack of appellate jurisdiction, this Court has the discretion to convert an appeal to an application for supervisory writs where an appeal was filed within the 30–day period allowed for the filing of applications for supervisory review. See Freeman v. Phillips 66 Co., 16-0247, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/16), 208 So.3d 437, 441. We, therefore, exercise our discretion to convert this matter to an application for supervisory writs.

Assignments of Error

The City raises a procedural and a substantive issue in its writ application. Procedurally, the City argues that the district court's November 17, 2026 order does not comply with La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 3865. Substantively, the City avers that the district court erred in granting a Writ of Mandamus ordering the City to issue an ABO license to JPN. For the reasons that follow, we find that the procedural issue raised by the City is dispositive of this matter.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

“Mandamus is a writ directing a public officer, a corporation or an officer thereof, or a limited liability company or a member or manager thereof, to perform any of the duties set forth in Articles 3863 and 3864.”⁵ La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 3861. Stated another way, “[m]andamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be used sparingly to compel the performance of a ministerial duty that is clearly required by law.” Sewell v. Huey, 00-0385, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/24/01), 779 So.2d 1003, 1005 (citing Plaquemines Parish Council v. Petrovich, 629 So.2d 1322, 1326 (La.App. 4th Cir.1993)). “A writ of mandamus may not be issued to compel a public official to exercise discretionary authority.” Id. (citing Connick v. City of New Orleans, 543 So.2d 66, 67 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989)).

“A trial court's ruling on a writ of mandamus is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. Cantrell, 23-0193, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/25/23), 376 So. 3d 969, 973 (citations omitted). Moreover, a manifest error standard of review is applicable to factual findings in a mandamus proceeding. Id. “In applying the manifestly erroneous—clearly wrong standard to the findings below, appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their initial review function is not to decide factual issues de novo. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989)(citing F. Maraist, The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1978–1979 Term—A Faculty Symposium, Civil Procedure, 40 La.L.Rev. 761, 764 (1980); Comment, Appellate Review of Facts in Louisiana Civil Cases, 21 La.L.Rev. 402, 412 (1961)) (additional citations omitted). “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.” Id. (citations omitted). Moreover, “where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.” Id. (citations omitted).

Compliance with La. Code of Civ. Proc. art. 3865

Article 3865 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, entitled Alternative writ, provides that “[u]pon the filing of a petition for a writ of mandamus, the court shall order the issuance of an alternative writ directing the defendant to perform the act demanded or to show cause to the contrary.” Moreover, the 1960 Official Revision Comment for art. 3865 provides “[t]his article and Art. 3866, infra, perpetuate the system under which an alternative order issues at the outset and the peremptory writ issues only after a hearing.” Furthermore, La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 3866, entitled Judgment, states “[a]fter the hearing, the court may render judgment making the writ peremptory.” In Naquin v. Iberia Par. Sch. Bd., 157 So.2d 287, 289 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1963), the Third Circuit interpreted art. 3865 to mean that the district court “is under a mandatory duty to issue the writ of alternative mandamus, which is the nature of a rule to show cause why the peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue.” The Naquin Court's holding is consistent with the language of articles 3866 and 3865, as well as its comment.

Applying articles 3865 and 3866 as well as Naquin, we find that the district court erred in simultaneously granting the alternative writ and the writ of mandamus, the latter being the peremptory writ. The district court further erred by failing to schedule a show cause hearing before granting the writ of mandamus or making the writ peremptory. These errors deprived the City of procedural due process by preventing the City from having the opportunity to establish why the City could not issue an ABO license via a writ of mandamus. Because the district court deviated from the applicable procedural requirements, we vacate the November 14, 2025 judgment and remand this matter to the district court to reconsider JPN's Expedited Writ of Mandamus and Alternative Writ. Having found that this procedural assignment of error is dispositive of this appeal, we pretermit consideration of the City's remaining assignment of error.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal of the City of New Orleans is converted to an application for supervisory writs, which is granted. The November 17, 2025 district court judgment is vacated and this matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to reconsider J'S Place Neauxla's Expedited Writ of Mandamus and Alternative Writ consistent with this opinion.

APPEAL CONVERTED TO A SUPERVISORY WRIT APPLICATION; WRIT GRANTED; NOVEMBER 17, 2025 JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

1.   On November 7, 2024, JPN asserts that it received an email from the City informing it that its Live Entertainment License had been unilaterally revoked by the City. JPN asserts that it did not receive notice nor was it afforded a hearing prior to the City acting.

2.   The record reflects that a judgment was rendered by a different district court judge, Judge LaKeisha N. Jefferson, on November 14, 2025, granting Respondents’ writ application. Three days later, however, the presiding judge rendered the November 17, 2025 judgement from which the instant appeal was taken.

3.   J's Place Neauxla, LLC v. City of New Orleans, 26-C-0063 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/20/26).

4.   J's Place Neauxla, LLC v. City of New Orleans, 26-00367 (La. 5/27/26), 432 So.3d 188.

5.   Article 3863 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure states that “[a] writ of mandamus may be directed to a public officer to compel the performance of a ministerial duty required by law, or to a former officer or his heirs to compel the delivery of the papers and effects of the office to his successor.” Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3864 sets forth that a writ of mandamus may be directed to a corporation or an officer thereof as well as a limited liability company or a member or manager thereof.

Judge Rachael D. Johnson