72 So. 3d 462
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- I.F., a Tulane student, was accused of raping K.K. in Sept. 2009; criminal acquittal followed without I.F. presenting a defense.
- Tulane disciplinary process conducted a three-day Joint Hearing Board proceeding, which found, in Aug. 2010, that K.K. was intoxicated and that I.F. knew or should have known.
- I.F. appealed the Joint Hearing Board decision to Tulane's Appellate Board on Sept. 27, 2010; appeal denied Oct. 7, 2010.
- I.F. filed a petition on Oct. 25, 2010 for preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin Tulane from imposing, enforcing, or recording the discipline and to reverse the decision.
- Tulane moved to dismiss; the trial court granted the motion on Jan. 5, 2011 before an evidentiary hearing; the court’s reasons referenced evidence not in the record; the court did not conduct the required evidentiary hearing for a mandatory injunction.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed, holding the trial court erred by dismissing prior to an evidentiary hearing and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on I.F.’s request for a mandatory injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting dismissal without an evidentiary hearing | I.F. argues mandatory relief requires an evidentiary hearing | Tulane contends dismissal was appropriate notwithstanding the form of relief sought | Yes, error; required evidentiary hearing on mandatory injunction |
| Whether a mandatory injunction standard applied and required live evidence | I.F. seeks removal of the discipline and restoration of record based on merit | Tulane argues standard was prohibitory injunction framework | Mandatory injunction requires evidentiary hearing; standard applied appropriately to the relief sought |
| Whether the trial court properly used a motion to dismiss under Louisiana procedure | I.F. contends there is no proper basis for dismissal without an evidentiary hearing | Tulane contends the motion to dismiss was proper | Incorrect; Louisiana law requires an evidentiary hearing for mandatory relief and does not support dismissal in this context |
| Whether the petition pleads a valid cause of action given material factual disputes | IF pleads a recognizable right to relief against Tulane’s disciplinary action | Tulane argues absence of evidence at that stage supports dismissal | Partial discussion not reached due to procedural error; remanded for evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Concerned Citizens for Proper Planning, LLC v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 906 So.2d 660 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2005) (mandatory injunction and evidentiary considerations)
- City of New Orleans v. Board of Directors of the Louisiana State Museum, 739 So.2d 748 (La. 1999) (mandatory injunction standards require more than prima facie showing)
- Denta-Max v. Maxicare La., Inc., 671 So.2d 995 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1996) (mandatory relief requires full evidentiary showing at hearing)
- Gagliano v. Amax Metals Recovery, Inc., 693 So.2d 889 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997) (involuntary dismissal timing and evidentiary requirements)
- Canal Motors, Inc. v. Campbell, 241 So.2d 5 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970) (judgment on pleadings/summary-judgment distinctions; no merit-based dismissal where material facts exist)