194 So. 3d 709
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- NOAB awarded a janitorial services contract for Louis Armstrong New Orleans Int’l Airport to Metro-Service Group, Inc. on February 19, 2015.
- Jani-King, an unsuccessful bidder, sued on May 22, 2015 alleging the award violated the Louisiana Public Bid Law and sought injunctive and declaratory relief plus attorney’s fees.
- Metro raised a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing the injunctive claims were untimely under La. R.S. 38:2215(B) because Jani-King sued more than 60 days after the award and the contract had been awarded and was to be executed.
- The district court ruled Jani-King’s petition for injunctive relief was untimely (prescribed) and thus denied injunctive relief; it did not rule on the declaratory-judgment claims.
- Jani-King appealed, arguing (1) the court erred in applying prescription and (2) Metro should have been required to prove factual conditions precedent; meanwhile the contract award and execution were completed during the appeal.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot because the injunctive relief sought would have prevented future conduct and the acts sought to be enjoined had already been accomplished; declaratory claims remain unadjudicated and were not before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of injunctive relief under La. R.S. 38:2215(B) | Jani-King argued the injunction filing was timely or that prescription did not bar relief | Metro argued the petition was filed after the 60-day prescription and the contract award/execution made injunction untimely | Court held injunction claims were prescribed and, because the challenged acts were completed, the appeal was moot |
| Burden to prove factual conditions precedent for exception of prescription | Jani-King argued Metro must prove factual conditions precedent before exception granted | Metro relied on statutory prescription and court process to sustain exception | Court did not reach a separate factual-precedent requirement; dismissal was on mootness/prescription grounds |
| Reviewability of injunction denial when the injunctive act has been completed | Jani-King sought appellate review of denial | Metro argued appeal was moot because the contract was awarded/executed | Court held appellate review of injunctive denial is barred when the injunctive relief can no longer prevent the contested conduct |
| Effect on remaining declaratory/damage claims | Jani-King asserted remaining declaratory and fee claims should be resolved on appeal | Metro argued injunction issue was the immediate subject and outcome mooted appeal | Court dismissed appeal as moot but noted declaratory/damages claims remain unaffected and not before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Verdun v. Scallon Brothers Contractors, Inc., 270 So.2d 512 (La. 1972) (injunctive relief cannot undo completed acts; appeal moot when relief is no longer justiciable)
- Whitney Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. Poydras Ctr. Associates, 468 So.2d 1246 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1985) (appellate courts will not render advisory opinions; may dismiss moot appeals)
- Jackson v. Dobard, 182 So.3d 1119 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (appeal from denial of injunction is moot if the act sought to be enjoined was accomplished pending appeal)
- Broadmoor, L.L.C. v. Ernest N. Morial New Orleans Exhibition Hall Auth., 867 So.2d 651 (La. 2004) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to forestall future conduct)
- Airline Constr. Co., Inc. v. Ascension Parish School Bd., 568 So.2d 1029 (La. 1990) (failure to timely seek injunctive relief may waive later damage claims against the public entity)