Sanders v. City of Winnfield

321 So.3d 1072

Roderick SANDERS On Behalf of Himself and a Class of Similarly Situated Louisiana Residents, Appellees

v.CITY OF WINNFIELD, Appellants

No. 53,872-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered May 26, 2021

PETTIETTE, ARMAND, DUNKELMAN, WOODLEY, BYRD & CROMWELL, L.L.P., Shreveport, By: Edwin H. Byrd, III, Marshall L. Perkins, Counsel for Appellants, City of Winnfield and The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company

LAW OFFICES OF HALES & STRICKLAND, Rayville, By: Myrt T. Hales, Jr., Joshua L. Strickland, Counsel for Appellees

Before MOORE, COX, and THOMPSON, JJ.

COX, J.

This civil suit arises from the 8^th Judicial District Court, Winn Parish, Louisiana, the Honorable Judge Jacque Derr presiding. The City of Winnfield ("the City"), the defendant in this matter, appeals from, and seeks review of a trial court judgment certifying a putative class action filed by Roderick Sanders ("Mr. Sanders") individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons residing in southwest Winn Parish in April 2017. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 5, 2017, Mr. Sanders individually and on behalf of the residents of southwest Winn Parish instituted this action with the filing of a class action petition for damages against the City.¹ The initial petition named Mr. Sanders as an individual who purported to represent a class of persons similarly situated, i.e ., those persons within a residential neighborhood in southwest Winn Parish who sustained damage as a result of flood waters. On behalf of the putative class, Mr. Sanders alleged that the City of Winnfield failed to uphold its duties as a Louisiana municipality to properly design, construct, and maintain the drainage facilities within its jurisdictional limits; particularly, those facilities in and throughout this area.

According to Mr. Sanders, he and the residents sustained severe damage from floodwaters after a rainstorm on April 30, 2017,² as a direct result of the City's failure to adequately maintain the drainage facility in this neighborhood. The petition listed the sustained damages suffered as damage to property, loss of use, inconvenience, aggravation and distress, and health hazard(s). Mr. Sanders sought further damages pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the La. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He maintained that the City systematically and intentionally discriminated against him and the residents in this area because its drainage and land use policies did not protect the property or provide adequate drainage throughout this area. In particular, the City's drainage practices resulted in varying degrees of quality of municipal services and facilities throughout the residences, prioritizing predominately white neighborhoods to the detriment of his own neighborhood, which was predominately African American.

The City removed this matter to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The federal court dismissed, without prejudice, Mr. Sanders's federal claims of equal protection violations, finding that he failed to adequately allege an unconstitutional policy of the City or that he, as a member of the protected class, was treated differently than other similarly situated persons outside of the class. The remaining negligence claims under state tort law were remanded to the district court. The petition was subsequently amended to exclusively assert a claim of negligence against the City for failure to adequately design, construct, and maintain its drainage facilities. The petition stated that the class's geographic area, or "area of flooding," was located "on the west side of Highway 34 and south of West Court Street, east of Pine Ridge Country Club, and north of Country Club Road."

Regarding the location, function, and condition of the drainage system after the City installed culverts and catch basins,³ and prior to the rainstorm on April 30^th, Mr. Sanders attached the opinion of engineer, Kevin C. Vanderbrook ("Mr. Vanderbrook"). The report provided:

The drainage system in the area is located on the south side of the east/west railroad tracks and on the west side of Highway 34. A drainage canal passed under Highway 34 immediately south of the railroad tracks and this served as the termination point for the watershed which drained the adjacent neighborhood. The system is designed so that the water will drain by means of a two-box culvert under the highway with an additional round culvert. The two openings of the box culvert measure approximately ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet and are located on the east side of a large creek bank which has been partially paved to prevent erosion. On the west side of the creek bank near the highway there is a round culvert which measures approximately five (5) feet in diameter which serves as the termination point for the drainage system of the original Creosote Creek watershed.

The termination of the end round culvert is in extremely bad condition with extensive long-term deterioration to the bottom of the metal culvert. The culvert had originally been asphalt coated but the asphalt has deteriorated to the point where the metal has rusted away, creating an opening along much of the culvert. The culvert has corroded and slumped downward, decreasing the cross-sectional area. Within the culvert system there is widespread deterioration of the drainage pipes though the system with significant corrosion and deterioration to the bottom of the culvert in virtually every section of the pipe, creating both a path for erosion of [soil] and introduction of debris into the pipe. Further, virtually all of the culvert pipe joints were deteriorated and allowed erosion and intrusion of debris into the culvert system.

The culvert pipe extends in a westward direction from Highway 34 approximately one-half (1/2) mile with various branches to secondary culverts and catch basins. There are numerous locations with widespread deterioration of the culvert pipes, widespread intrusion of debris, deterioration of joints and culvert pipes, and significant sloughage and erosion of soil into the culvert system, creating bypasses around the catch basins. In many areas the soil has eroded significantly around the catch basins due to a hole or opening into the culvert pipe and water bypasses the catch basins into the eroded soil area and enters the system through deterioration of either joints or pipes.

Mr. Sanders further alleged that the City's negligence in the construction, maintenance, and repair of the drainage system was a direct cause of the continual flooding in the area and the damage sustained to the land and property of those persons who lived, worked, and owned property in the area. In particular, it was alleged that the City was negligent in:

1) Failing to maintain the drainage system in a reasonable manner;

2) Failing to maintain the east side of Highway 34 by allowing trees, shrubbery, and debris to block the flow of water downstream;

3) Failing to maintain the catch basins within the system;

4) Failing to maintain the culverts within the system;

5) Failing to protect its citizens from storm waters despite taking on the responsibility... twenty (20) years ago;

6) Failing to maintain its drainage systems to be able to withstand expected amounts of rainfall;

7) Failing to repair the system despite having knowledge of its poor condition;

8) Failing to remove the system despite having knowledge of its poor condition; and

9) Res Ipsa Loquitur .

In support of these allegations, Mr. Sanders relied on Mr. Vanderbrook's opinion after the drainage system was inspected on October 7, 2017. Mr. Vaderbrook opined, in brevi , that the flooding on April 30, 2017, was caused by the City's "widespread neglect." Particularly, that the deterioration of the drainage system and underground culvert pipes reduced drainage capacity, causing significant safety hazards throughout, and that overgrown vegetation significantly restricted runoff, elevating the water level and flooding nearby homes.

On March 9, 2018, Mr. Sanders filed a motion for class certification, requesting that the trial court certify the class for prosecution of claims against the City. In a supplemental memorandum on behalf of and in support of the motion, Mr. Sanders claimed that the requirements for class certification were satisfied under La. C. C. P. art. 591(A), and attached a copy of a preliminary engineering report prepared by Oscar J. Boudreaux ("Mr. Boudreaux") for the City in 2013.⁴ Mr. Sanders argued that the report supported class certification because it acknowledged that the drainage system and structure were located in a densely populated area with numerous homes on each block, and that the deterioration of the system and its structures was a hazard and liability to both persons and property.

On March 2, 2020, a contradictory hearing was held in the trial court on the motion to certify the class action. The trial court requested both parties to brief the application of Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co ., 2008-2035 (La. 5/22/09), 13 So. 3d 546, and took the issue under advisement. Thereafter, the trial court granted the motion to certify the class action on March 17, 2020, and issued supplemental written findings of fact and reasons for judgment on June 24, 2020. In its stated reasons, the court provided:

The Class Area is defined as those properties located in the City of Winnfield, Winn Parish, Louisiana, bounded on the North by the railroad tracks; on the East by Highway 34; on the South by West Jones Street; and on the West by Patton Street.

The class will be those persons residing or owning property within the Class Area on or about April 30, 2017, who suffered property damage as a result of flooding which occurred in the Class Area on or about April 30, 2017.

It is clear from the reports of the two experts that the area of the alleged flooding is populated

...