City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas, 2016 CA 0655

218 So.3d 158

CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Parish of East Baton Rouge and The Department of Public Works

v.Anthony DOUGLAS and The Personnel Board of the City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge

2016 CA 0655

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

APRIL 12, 2017

Anthony W. Douglas Baton Rouge, Louisiana Appellant, In Proper Person Plaintiff—Anthony W. DouglasLea Anne Batson Parish Attorney and Marston Fowler Assistant Parish Attorney Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Appellee Defendant—City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge Department of Public Works

BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND CALLOWAY,¹ JJ.

CALLOWAY, J.

This is the fifth appeal in this employment dispute between the plaintiff–appellant, Anthony W. Douglas, and the defendant-appellee, the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge ("City/Parish"). The complete history is set forth in the following opinions:

City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas I ), 2000-1736 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), 800 So.2d 448 (unpublished), writ denied, 2001-2806 (La. 11/9/01), 801 So.2d 1066, overruled byCity of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas II ), 2004-1448 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/29/05), 923 So.2d 166 (en banc ), writ denied, 2006-0675 (La. 6/2/06), 929 So.2d 1254, enforcement denied, 2006-0675 (La. 11/4/11), 75 So.3d 912, writs denied, 2011-0328 (La. 4/1/11), 60 So.3d 1255, 2006-0675 (La. 12/16/11), 76 So.3d 1189 ;

City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas III ), 2007-1153 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/8/08), 984 So.2d 746, 747, writ denied, 2008-0939 (La. 6/20/08), 983 So.2d 1284 ; and

City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas (Douglas IV ), 2011-2061 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/8/12), 2012 WL 2061419 (unpublished), writ denied , 2012-1575 (La. 10/12/12), 98 So.3d 875.

To summarize, this litigation began with Mr. Douglas's disputed termination of employment with the City/Parish in 1999. After two appeals, Mr. Douglas was reinstated to his employment. In connection with Mr. Douglas's reinstatement to employment, he underwent a routine physical examination and drug/alcohol screening in January 2007. Following the results of the drug screening, the City/Parish again sought to terminate Mr. Douglas's employment, and Mr. Douglas once again disputed the termination. The parties and their attorneys engaged in a settlement conference with the trial court, after which a settlement agreement was entered on the record in open court. It was made clear that the settlement agreement was intended to end all litigation between the parties. After the City/Parish made the necessary arrangements to have the settlement approved by the Baton Rouge Metro Council and to obtain the settlement funds, Mr. Douglas changed his mind and attempted to refuse to accept the terms of the settlement. In Douglas III, this court determined that the parties had entered into a valid compromise agreement and affirmed the April 30, 2007 judgment of the trial court that granted the City/Parish's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and ordered Mr. Douglas to execute all of the documents and take all actions necessary to consummate the settlement agreement. The record reflects that Mr. Douglas executed the documents and acknowledged money payments under the terms of the settlement agreement.

After the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs in Douglas III, Mr. Douglas filed a petition in the trial court seeking to recognize the absolute nullity of the April 30, 2007 judgment of the trial court and the settlement agreement that Mr. Douglas executed pursuant to the April 30, 2007 judgment. Mr. Douglas set forth numerous bases for recognizing the nullity of the April 30, 2007 judgment, this court's decision in Douglas III, as well as the settlement agreement that he executed pursuant to the April 30, 2007 judgment, with the central argument being that the prior judgment ordering him reinstated to employment could not be set aside.

Douglas IV , 2011–2061, 2012 WL 2061419, at *1.

In Douglas IV, this court concluded that Mr. Douglas was attempting to relitigate the validity of the compromise agreement and the April 30, 2007 judgment ordering him to consummate the settlement agreement. This court noted that these arguments had been considered and rejected in Douglas III and then affirmed the trial court's judgment. Douglas IV , 2011–2061, 2012 WL 2061419, at *2.

According to the City/Parish, after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs in Douglas IV , Mr. Douglas filed pleadings in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in February 2013, asserting age and employment discrimination, as well as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and due process of law. The City/Parish successfully filed a Rule 12(b) motion, the federal district court dismissed all matters.

In January 2015, Mr. Douglas filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court seeking to be immediately reinstated to his former employment with the City/Parish Department of Public Works and awarded full back pay and monetary damages. The City/Parish filed peremptory exceptions pleading res judicata and no cause of action on March 9, 2015, which the trial court set for hearing on June 8, 2015; however, our review of the record shows the trial court did not hear or issue an oral or written ruling on these exceptions.²

Following a hearing on Mr. Douglas's petition for a writ of mandamus, held on March 16, 2015, the trial court signed a ruling denying Mr. Douglas's petition on March 18, 2015, and signed a judgment in accordance therewith on April 2, 2015. Thereafter, Mr. Douglas filed a motion requesting the trial court give written reasons for its ruling. The trial court issued written reasons for its judgment on June 3, 2015. Mr. Douglas then filed a motion for recusal, requesting that the trial court recuse itself from his case for alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Rules of Professional Conduct, and La. C.C.P. articles 151 and 154. The trial court denied that motion, without a hearing, on June 22, 2015.

Thereafter, Mr. Douglas filed a motion for new trial regarding the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus in the judgment signed April 2, 2015; the City/Parish opposed the motion for new trial. The trial court denied Mr. Douglas's motion for new trial in a judgment signed September 21, 2015. Mr. Douglas filed notice of his intent to apply for supervisory writs with this court regarding the September 21, 2015 judgment denying his motion for new trial and the June 22, 2015 judgment denying his motion for recusal; however, our records indicate that Mr. Douglas never filed a writ application with this court.

Mr. Douglas filed a devolutive appeal of the September 21, 2015 judgment denying his motion for new trial.³ Mr. Douglas assigns error to the trial court's refusal to grant his motion for recusal. Mr. Douglas also argues that the trial court erred by allowing the City/Parish to "commit fraud by filing and maintaining false public records and making false statements to the court[.]"

JURISDICTION

Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte , even when the parties do not raise the issue. Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc ., 2011-0520 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So.3d 1054, 1059, writ denied, 2012-0360 (La. 4/9/12), 85 So.3d 698. Our appellate jurisdiction extends to "final judgments," which are those that determine the merits in whole or in part. La. C.C.P. arts. 1841 and 2083 ; see Van ex rel. White v. Davis, 2000-0206 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/16/01), 808 So.2d 478, 483.

Mr. Douglas appealed only the judgment rendered on September 21, 2015, which was the judgment denying his motion for a new trial. The established rule in this circuit is that the denial of a motion for new trial is an interlocutory and non-appealable judgment.⁴ McKee v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. , 2006-1672 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/8/07), 964 So.2d 1008, 1013, writ denied , 2007-1655 (La. 10/26/07), 966 So.2d 583. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court has directed us to consider an appeal of the denial of a motion for new trial as an appeal of the judgment on the merits as well, when it is clear from the appellant's brief that he intended to appeal the merits of the case. Carpenter v. Hannan, 2001-0467 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/28/02), 818 So.2d 226, 228–29, writ denied , 2002-1707 (La. 10/25/02), 827 So.2d 1153. Furthermore, when an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, the appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse interlocutory rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to the review of the final judgment. Landry v. Leonard J. Chabert Medical Center, 2002-1559 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/14/03), 858 So.2d 454, 461 n.4, writs denied,2003–1748, 20031752 (La. 10/17/03), 855 So.2d 761. Thus, the interlocutory denial of a motion for new trial is subject to review on appeal in connection with the review of an appealable judgment in the same case.⁵ Moran v. G & G Construction, 2003-2447 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/04), 897 So.2d 75, 83 n.4, writ denied, 2004-2901 (La. 2/25/05), 894 So.2d 1148.

It is obvious from Mr. Douglas's brief that he intended to appeal the judgment on the merits—the April 2, 2015 judgment that denied his petition for a writ of mandamus. The denial of a request for a writ of mandamus is an appealable judgment. Constr. Diva, L.L.C. v. New Orleans Aviation Bd., 2016-0566 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/14/16), 206 So.3d 1029, 1032, writ denied, 2017-0083 (La. 2/24/17), 216 So.3d 59, 2017 WL 944282 ; ANR Pipeline Co. v. Louisiana Tax Comm'n , 2001-2594 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/20/02), 815 So.2d 178, 186 n.5, writ granted , 2002-1479 (La. 3/21/03), 840 So.2d 527, aff'd and remanded, 2002-1479 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1145 ; Authement v. Larpenter , 97-1985 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/15/98), 713 So.2d 718, 719 n.3, writ denied , 98-1584 (La. 9/18/98), 724 So.2d 771 ; See, e.g. , In re Belle Co., L.L.C. , 2006-1077 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/07), 978 So.2d 977, writs denied , 2008...