Bates v. City of New Orleans
137 So. 3d 774
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Mary Bates, former City of New Orleans employee, sustained a work-related injury in 1999 and became permanently disabled; she was laid off in 2005.
- Bates received workers’ compensation through 2009 and settled a disputed claim on December 30, 2009 for $41,500 (including $8,300 in attorney fees); the WC judgment reserved her right to seek retirement benefits.
- Bates sued the City and the New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System (NOMERS) for accidental disability retirement benefits; a bench trial resulted in an October 31, 2012 judgment awarding benefits “from October 12, 2009 … as allowed by law.” No timely appeal or new-trial motion followed that judgment.
- The City/NOMERS asserted in their answer an affirmative defense of credit/setoff and relied on New Orleans City Code §114-226 (an ordinance allowing offsets of retirement benefits by workers’ compensation benefits, excluding medical benefits).
- After the retirement system attempted to apply an offset against Bates’ benefits, Bates moved to enforce the October 31 judgment and for costs; the trial court on April 26, 2013 ordered benefits “without any credit or offset” and awarded costs; later (August 9, 2013) the trial court found the defendants in contempt and awarded sanctions and attorneys’ fees.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed consolidated appeals from the April 26 and August 9, 2013 judgments and addressed (a) whether the §114-226 offset was an affirmative defense, (b) whether the April 26 order improperly amended the October 31 judgment, (c) costs, and (d) contempt jurisdiction during a suspensive appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §114-226 offset is an affirmative defense | Bates: offset was an affirmative defense; silence in the Oct. 31 judgment denied it, so defendants are barred (res judicata) | City/NOMERS: offset is a governing provision of law that applies automatically and need not be specially pleaded | Held: §114-226 is part of the statutory scheme, not a new affirmative defense; trial court erred in treating it as one; inclusion of “as allowed by law” in Oct. 31 judgment recognized offset rights |
| Whether the April 26, 2013 order improperly amended the Oct. 31 judgment | Bates: trial judge intended no offset; order merely enforced judgment | City/NOMERS: April 26 order added limiting language and substantively altered the final judgment in violation of La. C.C.P. art. 1951 | Held: April 26 language adding “without any credit or offset” was an impermissible substantive amendment and is a nullity; original Oct. 31 judgment reinstated (except as to costs below) |
| Award of costs in April 26 judgment | Bates: sought enforcement costs; argued entitlement to general costs | City/NOMERS: had complied with original judgment and challenged costs award | Held: specific costs of $484.90 (documented deposition and filing fees) affirmed; the broad/general award of “all outstanding costs” reversed because La. R.S. 13:5112(A) requires specific dollar amounts against state entities |
| Validity of contempt judgment (Aug. 9, 2013) while suspensive appeal pending | Bates: contempt based on Oct. 31 judgment (final); trial court orally lifted stay and had jurisdiction | City/NOMERS: trial court divested of jurisdiction over matters reviewable on appeal (including the offset); trial court had earlier stayed proceedings and that stay was not vacated | Held: contempt motion centered on offset — an issue reviewable on appeal — so the trial court was divested of jurisdiction; August 9 judgment reversed in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La. 1978) (defines manifest error standard for factual findings)
- Bienvenu v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 1077 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (analysis on what constitutes an affirmative defense and purpose of C.C.P. art. 1005)
- Allvend, Inc. v. Payphone Commissions Co., Inc., 804 So.2d 27 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (definition of affirmative defense as new matter)
- Fishbein v. State ex rel. LSU Health Sciences Center, 960 So.2d 67 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (statutory rules governing retirement benefits are part of the legal framework and not affirmative defenses)
- Bourgeois v. Kost, 846 So.2d 692 (La. 2003) (trial court may not substantively alter a final, signed judgment)
- Denton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 998 So.2d 48 (La. 2008) (Article 1951 permits correction of clerical errors but not substantive amendments)
- McGee v. Wilkinson, 878 So.2d 552 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2004) (written judgment controls; trial court cannot change substance of a final judgment even to reflect judge’s intent)