275 So. 3d 457
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- New Orleans CZO §4.3 governs conditional-use applications: CPC makes a recommendation and the City Council must hold a hearing and act by motion; if Council approves, it forwards a motion to the Law Dept. for preparation of an ordinance.
- CZO §4.3.D.4(c) states Council "may" adopt the ordinance after a 21-day layover and "shall adopt the final ordinance ratifying its decision within ninety (90) days" of the motion. Plaintiffs read this as mandatory; the City reads it as a deadline to vote, not a mandatory adoption.
- Home Rule Charter Art. III §3-112 requires recorded ayes/nays and adoption of ordinances by affirmative majority of all Council members.
- Plaintiffs obtained a trial-court writ of mandamus ordering the Council to adopt and ratify a conditional-use ordinance approved by motion on May 24, 2018.
- The appellate court reversed: it concluded the CZO language, read with the Charter, gives the Council discretion to adopt or reject the proposed ordinance, so mandamus to compel adoption was improper.
- The court remanded for assessment of court costs and declined the City's separate request on costs, leaving cost allocation to the trial court's discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CZO §4.3.D.4(c) creates a ministerial duty to adopt an ordinance within 90 days | The plain sentence "shall adopt" requires Council to adopt the ordinance ratifying the May 24 motion within 90 days; mandamus is appropriate | The provision sets voting timeframes but does not compel final adoption; Council retains discretion to accept or deny the ordinance | Court held provision sets a deadline to vote, not a mandatory command to adopt; no ministerial duty, mandamus improper |
| Whether a writ of mandamus can compel Council to vote to adopt a zoning ordinance | Mandamus can enforce clear, ministerial duties; here, Plaintiffs argued duty existed | City argued any vote to adopt involves discretion and thus cannot be compelled | Court held adoption is discretionary; mandamus unavailable to force discretionary action |
| Whether CZO language should be read in isolation or with other provisions (contextual interpretation) | Plaintiffs argued the sentence is unambiguous on its face | City argued sentences must be read together and harmonized with Charter voting rules | Court applied statutory-interpretation principles and read the sentences together; interpreted to avoid rendering language superfluous |
| Whether the Home Rule Charter requires affirmative adoption of such ordinances | Plaintiffs suggested Charter supported mandatory adoption | City argued Charter only prescribes voting/majority rules and recording of votes, not automatic adoption | Court held Charter provisions reinforce Council's authority to accept or deny and do not mandate affirmative votes in favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 925 So.2d 1202 (La. 2006) (rules and principles for statutory interpretation)
- Humane Soc'y of New Orleans v. Landrieu, 135 So.3d 1195 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (mandamus cannot compel action that requires exercise of discretion)
- State, Dep't of Transp. & Dev. v. Lauricella Land Co., 106 So.3d 1124 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2012) (interpretation of La. R.S. 13:4521 regarding court-cost deferment)
- Jefferson Par. Hosp. Dist. No. 1 v. K & B Louisiana Corp., 138 So.3d 51 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (trial court discretion in awarding costs)