182 So. 3d 1119
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- John McDonogh Senior High (post-Katrina) operated under RSD, converted to charter, then closed in June 2013 after failing ratings; local committees (JMHSSC, JMHSAHC) sought return/control of the facility.
- BESE scheduled a November 12, 2014 meeting whose agenda stated BESE would “receive the report regarding meetings and the community engagement process concerning the future use and control of the John McDonogh facility.”
- At that meeting a substitute motion directing the State Superintendent to issue an RFP to operate the John McDonogh facility was made and approved over two dissents.
- Susie Jackson sued for injunctive relief and voidance, alleging the substitute motion violated open meetings law because the published agenda did not provide legally sufficient notice.
- The trial court temporarily restrained contracting, then after hearing denied a preliminary injunction, finding notice legally sufficient; Jackson appealed.
- During the appeal the Superintendent selected Bricolage Academy to occupy the facility (announcement April 22, 2015), so the activity Jackson sought to enjoin had already occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BESE violated open-meetings law by voting on a substitute motion and whether a preliminary injunction should issue | Jackson: published agenda failed to provide legally sufficient notice of the substitute motion, so vote was unlawful and injunctive relief was warranted | Defendants: public notice was legally sufficient; trial court properly denied preliminary injunction | Court: appeal dismissed as moot because the appointment/contracting activity Jackson sought to enjoin was completed (selection announced), so no practical relief remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Oestreicher v. Hackett, 660 So.2d 29 (La. 1995) (purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending trial)
- Silliman Private Sch. Corp. v. S’holder Grp., 789 So.2d 20 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (burden on party seeking preliminary injunction is preponderance to make a prima facie case)
- Kern v. Kern, 85 So.3d 78 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (elements required to obtain preliminary injunction)
- Mary Moe, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 875 So.2d 22 (La. 2004) (preliminary injunction may issue on a prima facie showing)
- City of New Orleans Through Dep’t of Safety & Permits v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 694 So.2d 975 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996) (appeal from denial of injunction dismissed as moot where challenged act was completed)
- Walters v. Childers, 38 So.2d 160 (La. 1948) (precedent on mootness when injunctive target is completed)
- City Stores Co. v. Gervais F. Favrot Co., Inc., 315 So.2d 370 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1975) (appeal dismissed as moot where arbitration completed)
- Morehouse Par. Police Jury v. Wildlife & Fisheries Comm’n, 199 So.2d 542 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1967) (mootness where no practical relief can be granted)