Slaughter v. La. State Emps. Ret. Sys.

305 So.3d 358

Dr. Ralph SLAUGHTER

v.LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

2019 CA 0977

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: JUNE 01, 2020

Rehearing Denied July 8, 2020

Scott D. Wilson, John S. McLindon, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant, Dr. Ralph Slaughter

Tina Vicari, Grant R. Stephen Stark, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

MCCLENDON, J.

This case is before us on appeal by plaintiff, Dr. Ralph Slaughter, from a judgment of the trial court denying plaintiff's "motion for judgment on the record." For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The background of this case is set forth in the Supreme Court's earlier opinion in Slaughter v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, 2015-0324 (La. 10/14/15), 180 So.3d 279, 280-81 (per curiam ).

In 2009, plaintiff, Dr. Ralph Slaughter, retired as president of Southern University System ("Southern") after thirty-five years of service. Upon retirement, the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System ("LASERS") began paying plaintiff retirement benefits of $24,487 per month.

In 2009, plaintiff filed suit against Southern for past due wages. The district court ruled that Southern had miscalculated plaintiff's income base by including supplemental pay plaintiff had received from the Southern University Foundation, and determined plaintiff's terminal pay (500 hours of unused leave) and retirement should have been calculated only on his $220,000 annual base salary due from Southern. The court of appeal affirmed on appeal, noting plaintiff "manipulated the system and used his position for his own benefit." [ Slaughter v. Bd. of Supervisors of Southern Univ. & Agr. & Mech. Coll., 10-1049 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/2/11), 76 So.3d 438, writ denied, 11-2110 (La. 1/13/12), 77 So.3d 970 ("Slaughter I ")].

In the meanwhile, on January 22, 2010, Southern sent a letter to LASERS advising it had committed an error in including supplemental funds in plaintiff's earnings. Because the [ Slaughter I ] suit was ongoing at the time, LASERS filed a concursus proceeding (hereinafter referred to as ["Slaughter II"]) seeking to deposit the disputed amount of plaintiff's benefit in the registry of court pending resolution of the [ Slaughter I ] litigation. Plaintiff filed an exception of no cause of action. The district court granted the exception and dismissed [Slaughter II ] with prejudice. LASERS did not appeal this judgment, and it is now final.

On April 27, 2012, after [Slaughter I] became final, LASERS sent correspondence to plaintiff advising it intended to retroactively reduce his retirement benefit starting June 1, 2012 "due to an error made by Southern University in the reporting of your earnings." Relying on La. R.S. 11:192, LASERS maintained it may adjust benefits and further reduce the corrected benefit to recover overpayment within a reasonable number of months.

Plaintiff then filed the instant suit against LASERS, seeking a writ of mandamus, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment confirming LASERS has no authority or ability to reduce his retirement benefits. The petition alleged plaintiff's retirement benefits should be calculated based on the entirety of his earnings over thirty-five years of employment, including salary supplements.

After a bench trial, the district court granted plaintiff's petition for declaratory judgment. Without reaching the merits of plaintiffs arguments regarding the calculation of benefits, the court held LASERS was not entitled to reduce plaintiff's retirement benefits because it failed to follow the procedural requirements set forth in La. R.S. 11:407. Specifically, the court found LASERS failed to introduce any evidence indicating it submitted documentation of the administrative error to the LASERS board of trustees as required by La. R.S. 11:407.

LASERS appealed this ruling. Plaintiff answered the appeal, asserting that any attempt by LASERS to reduce his benefits was barred by res judicata and prescription.

On appeal, the court of appeal rejected plaintiff's res judicata and prescription arguments. However, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff, finding LASERS failed to prove that it followed the proper procedure before initiating action to reduce and recoup plaintiff's retirement benefits. [ Slaughter v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, 13-2255 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/4/14), 2014 WL 6854536 (unpublished )]. One judge concurred and another judge dissented ["Slaughter III" ].

Upon the application of LASERS, we granted certiorari to review the correctness of that decision. [Slaughter v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, 13-0324 (La. 6/1/15), 171 So.3d 258] [ "Slaughter IV" ].

[Footnotes omitted.]

Upon review of this court's decision in Slaughter III , the Supreme Court in Slaughter IV found that this court had properly rejected plaintiff's arguments of res judicata and prescription. The Slaughter IV Court then stated that as to the merits of this court's decision in Slaughter III , "the narrow question presented for our resolution is whether LASERS failed to follow the proper procedure before initiating action to reduce and recoup plaintiff's retirement benefits." The Slaughter IV Court concluded that this court and the trial court had erred in finding LASERS failed to prove that it followed the proper procedure before initiating action to reduce and recoup plaintiff's benefits, and reversed this court's judgment on that point. The Slaughter IV Court affirmed this court's judgment in all other respects and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. Slaughter IV, 180 So.3d at 281-84.

Following Slaughter IV , on September 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking restoration of plaintiff's retirement benefits in the amount of $24,487.95 per month, as originally calculated, and injunctive relief preventing LASERS from interfering with payment of that amount. Plaintiff argued that although LASERS may have followed the proper procedure to initiate action to reduce and recoup benefits, no reduction or recoupment was appropriate. Plaintiff maintained that there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding judgment in his favor on this point, and requested that the trial court:

[R]equire LASERS to restore to Dr. Slaughter all retirement benefits to which he is due, with interest, and award him attorney fees, costs, and other legal, general, and equitable relief, including a declaration that Dr. Slaughter is entitled to retirement benefits in the amount of $24,487.95 per month and injunctive relief preventing LASERS from interfering with payment of this amount in retirement benefits to Dr. Slaughter.

In response, LASERS filed an exception raising the objection of res judicata. The trial court heard plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and LASERS' exception together on January 22, 2018, and executed a written judgment denying both on February 14, 2018.

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a pleading entitled "Motion for Declaratory Judgment" on June 28, 2018, seeking "judgment that all earned compensation, including the salary supplement paid to him by the Southern University System, be found to be a part of his average monthly compensation for purposes of retirement benefits...." Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of his motion for declaratory judgment, in which he repeated the arguments and requests for relief set forth in his September 20, 2017 motion for summary judgment. The record demonstrates that neither the trial court nor the parties took any action on plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment.

On September 6, 2018, plaintiff filed a pleading entitled "Plaintiff's Post-Trial Brief on Remand in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Record," ("motion for judgment on the record"). Plaintiff specifically sought an order from the trial court directing LASERS to show cause "why plaintiff should not be awarded judgment as prayed for in his lawsuit, on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court, based on the record already generated in this court." The motion for judgment on the record again repeated the arguments and requests for relief made in plaintiff's September 20, 2017 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not submit any new evidence in support of the motion for judgment on the record.

The trial court heard plaintiff's motion for judgment on the record on February 11/ 2019. On March 6, 2019, the trial court executed a written judgment denying the motion for judgment on the record, which provided in pertinent part:

Considering the pleadings, evidence, the memoranda, and the argument of counsel:

It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Record be and is hereby DENIED at plaintiff's costs.

An identical written judgment was executed on March 19, 2019.¹ Plaintiff then filed the instant appeal.

Upon the lodging of the record with this court, we issued an exproprio motu rule ordering the parties to show cause by briefs why the instant appeal should not be dismissed as the March 6, 2019 judgment was not a final, appealable judgment.² Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Remand and Supplement the Record with an Amended District Court Judgment," recognizing that the March 6, 2019 judgment was defective and requesting the remand of this matter to the trial court for the purpose of obtaining an amended judgment that would be final and appealable in nature, and to supplement the appellate record with such judgment. On October 28, 2019, this court referred plaintiff's motion to the panel hearing the merits of the appeal.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue, and we are obligated to recognize any lack of jurisdiction if...