JASON CHRISTOPHER SHAFFETTE v. CITY OF SLIDELL AND ST TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT (2024)

The majority has confected an equitable remedy that is not allowed by our laws. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the majority's decision to grant the writ application and reinstate the trial court's December 30, 2022 judgment. I would grant the writ application on different grounds and strictly for the following purposes: to vacate the court of appeal's ruling, to vacate the trial court's December 30, 2022 judgment, and to reinstate the trial court's September 10, 2019 judgment.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2004 A provides that a “final judgment obtained by ․ ill practices may be annulled.” Two criteria determine whether a judgment has been obtained by fraud or ill practice: “(1) when the circumstances under which the judgment was rendered show the deprivation of legal rights of the litigant who seeks relief, and (2) when the enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable.” Kem Search, Inc. v. Sheffield, 434 So.2d 1067, 1070 (La. 1983). The Kem Search Court explained that “[c]onduct which prevents an opposing party from having an opportunity to appear or to assert a defense constitutes a deprivation of his legal rights.” Id., 434 So.2d at 1070. Importantly, however, a nullity action requires some fraud or ill practice on the part of an opposing party. In Succession of Vidrine, 23-15, p. 4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/6/23), --- So.3d ----, 2023 WL 8446265 at *3, the court explained: “A party seeking nullity of a judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 2004 must demonstrate how he was deprived of the opportunity to present the defense because of some act of fraud or ill practice on the part of the opposing party.”¹

Here, the court of appeal recognized that there was no “intentional misconduct.” Shaffette v. City of Slidell, 22-1202, p. 11 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/11/23), --- So. 3d ----. ----, 2023 WL 8590712 (unpub.). I agree with this assessment and also recognize that the record does not demonstrate any fraud or ill practice as contemplated by Article 2004. The trial court's reasons for judgment, issued prior to the written judgment, expressly stated that the “suit is therefore dismissed with prejudice,” and instructed the St. Tammany Parish Government [the “Parish”] to “submit a judgment in compliance with the procedure set forth in Rule 9.5 of the Louisiana Uniform Rules for District Courts.”²

The Parish then circulated a proposed judgment in conformity with the trial court's reasons for judgment. After receiving no objection, the Parish submitted the judgment, and the trial court signed it on September 10, 2019.

Respondent was not without recourse in this situation to challenge the dismissal of the suit with prejudice. First, Respondent could have objected to the proposed judgment, or the reasons for judgment, when they were circulated. Second, once the judgment was signed, the proper recourse to correct the mistake was to timely apply for a new trial, or timely appeal. See, e.g., Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785, p. 7 (La. 5/20/03), 846 So.2d 692, where this Court stated:

It is well settled under our jurisprudence that a judgment which has been signed cannot be altered, amended, or revised by the judge who rendered the same, except in the manner provided by law. The trial judge cannot, on his own motion or on the motion of any party, change a judgment which has been so signed, notwithstanding it was signed in error․ Courts have uniformly held substantive amendments to judgments made without recourse to the proper procedures, i.e. by way of a timely motion for a new trial or by appeal, to be absolute nullities.

Id., 02-2785, p. 7 (La. 5/20/03), 846 So.2d at 696. (Emphasis added).

The judgment in this case became final upon the dismissal of the appeal on October 21, 2019. As there was no basis to annul it for fraud or ill practices, the trial court's September 10, 2019 judgment, dismissing the suit with prejudice, should be reinstated. While the result is harsh, it is unfortunately mandated by statute.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See also, Hymel v. Discover Bank, 09-286, p. 4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/8/09), 30 So.3d 51, 55; Andrus v. Chrysler Fin. Corp., 99-105, p. 6 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/2/99); 741 So.2d 780, 784, citing State, Dep't of Soc. Servs., Office of Family Support in the Interest of Glass v. Robinson, 31,025 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/23/98), 718 So.2d 609.

2.   Rule 9.5 (b) of the Uniform Rules for District Courts requires the party preparing a judgment to “circulate the proposed judgment, order, or ruling to counsel for all parties ․ and allow at least five (5) working days for comment before presentation to the court.” It further requires the party submitting the judgment to provide the court with a certificate stating, inter alia, “whether any opposition was received; and the nature of the opposition.”

McCALLUM, J., dissents and assigns reasons.