CAMILLE SCHAFER ET AL v. KEVIN DARR ET AL (2024)

I agree with the Court's decision to deny certification in this matter pursuant to our discretion as set forth in La. Sup. Court Rule XII, § 1.¹ The constitutional arguments advanced by plaintiffs do not appear to be ripe for consideration. See Branton v. Par. of St. Tammany, 21-1743 (La. 11/29/21), 328 So. 3d 406, 408 (in considering constitutional ripeness, this Court has focused on “the hardship to the parties if a court does not decide․” and “the fitness of the issues for decision,” also noting that later developments in a case may eliminate a constitutional problem). The instant case is in its infancy; the federal court has yet to rule on the motion for partial summary judgment filed by plaintiffs (which seeks to strike defendants’ affirmative defense of immunity under La. R.S. 29:771(B)(2)(c)(i)). Moreover, it is possible later developments in the case could render the constitutional issues moot.

This Court is also aware that the practice of allowing certified questions directly from the federal district courts presents a possibility that the matter may not be well postured for decision. The district court has held no hearings and has made no determinations regarding the constitutional issues. Should this Court certify this question at this stage in the proceedings, we would be required to make a ruling on constitutionality without the benefit of a complete record. Even in determining whether to accept certification, this Court must be ever mindful of the proper process in appellate review, as “[t]his process is enriched by the transcript of a full evidentiary hearing and consideration by the trial court of issues properly raised, the consideration of post-trial motions, and intermediate appellate review.” Schlieter v. Carlos, 108 N.M. 507, 775 P.2d 709, 712-13 (1989) (the court declining to accept certification of pre-trial questions where no evidentiary hearing had occurred and without a fully developed record).

Although I do not diminish the significance of the issues presented herein, the case is not properly postured for this Court's review and certification is properly denied.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Importantly, however, I have also previously disagreed with the Court's decision to deny certification in several matters. In my view, “certification promotes comity between the state and federal courts, permitting the highest court of the state to develop principles of state substantive law.” Goodrich v. United States, 21-988 (La. 11/17/21), 327 So. 3d 492 (Crichton, J., dissenting from the denial of certification). See also, Southland Circle, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Co., 23-990 (La. 10/3/23), 370 So. 3d 1047 (Crichton, J., would grant certification and assigning reasons).

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons: