Lord v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
97 So. 3d 1077
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Lord filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus challenging a Department license suspension dated Sept 20, 2011 (notice dated Sept 6, 2011) under LSA-R.S. 32:414; suspension based on a 2004 Florida DWI; the suspension notice allowed judicial review within 30 days; Department maintained the suspension; trial court sua sponte granted reinstatement; Department appealed.
- The Department suspended license for one year; notice required review within 30 days per 32:414(F)(4).
- Lord argued mandamus could be used to circumvent a late review or that the G period had commenced; trial court granted immediate reinstatement after hearing.
- Appellate court determined the 30-day period is peremptive and peremption cannot be interrupted; mandamus cannot override peremption or extend the time to seek review.
- Court reverses and dismisses Lord’s mandamus petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 32:414(F)(4) or peremption | Lord; mandamus tolls or ignores the 30-day limit | Department; 30-day period is peremptive and cannot be extended | The 30-day period is peremptive; action is perempted when filed |
| Proper remedy for challenging suspension | Mandamus is available for review of suspension | Mandamus is inappropriate where peremption applies; requires ordinary/summary proceeding with ministerial duty | Mandamus cannot override peremption; not a proper vehicle to seek relief after the period |
| Role of mandamus vs summary proceedings | Statute allows judicial review via summary proceeding; mandamus same? | Mandamus is a distinct, discretionary remedy with strict limits | Mandamus is not an ordinary summary proceeding and cannot bypass peremption |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 872 So.2d 650 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2004) (thirty-day period for judicial review under 32:414(F)(4) is peremptive)
- Bardwell v. Faust, 962 So.2d 13 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2007) (distinguishes no right of action vs peremption concepts)
- Webre v. Wilson, 672 So.2d 1124 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1996) (mandamus as a ministerial-duty remedy; limitations on discretionary acts)
- Carroll v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 647 So.2d 603 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1994) (cited in context of delay in challenging suspensions)