117 So. 3d 532
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- LPSC and its commissioners sued the Legislature challenging Acts 226 of 2009 and 633 of 2010 as unconstitutional transfers of dedicated funds to the general fund.
- The three dedicated funds are the Utility and Carrier Inspection Land Supervision Fund, the Telephonic Solicitation Relief Fund, and the Motor Carrier Regulation Fund, funded by fees rather than general fund appropriations.
- LPSC alleged that the 2009 and 2010 transfers swept fee monies into the general fund, converting fee dollars into tax revenue in violation of constitutional provisions.
- LPSC asserted violations of Article III, Section 2, Article VII, Section 2, and Articles VII, Sections 7 and 10, plus federal and state equal protection and due process guarantees.
- The trial court sustained the Legislature’s peremptory exception of no cause of action, dismissed the petition with prejudice, and did not reach other exceptions.
- On appeal, the court held the no-cause-of-action ruling was improper and remanded to consider the remaining exceptions; the decision reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Acts 226 and 633 retroactively convert fees into taxes, violating due process? | LPSC asserts retroactive conversion violates due process. | Legislature contends no creation of a tax or unconstitutional retroactivity. | Requires merits resolution; court remands for merits; not decided on this issue here. |
| Do Acts 226 and 633 violate equal protection by taxing LPSC-ratepayers differently? | Sweeps impose a tax burden on ratepayers not imposed on others. | Transfers do not create a new tax; no invidious classification shown. | Remanded for merits; not resolved on no-cause-of-action ruling. |
| Do Acts 226 and 633 violate constitutional requirements for creating a tax/fee or reducing appropriations under Article VII? | Acts create/levy taxes or new fees and reduce appropriations beyond constitutional limits. | No new tax/fee issuance and no improper reduction shown. | Remanded for merits; the no-cause-of-action ruling was improper. |
| Does LPSC have standing or a proper basis to raise due process/equal protection claims (no right of action)? | LPSC has standing as the tribunal governing ratepayers and funds. | LPSC lacks standing to assert third-party rights and related claims. | Not properly before this court at this time; remand to address remaining exceptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierrotti v. Johnson, 91 So.3d 1056 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2012) (burden on mover; no cause of action evaluated on petition alone)
- Walters v. Rubicon, Inc., 706 So.2d 503 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1997) (exception of no cause of action maintains petition to allow evidence)
- Bruneau v. Edwards, 517 So.2d 818 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1987) (no cause of action standard; petition sufficiency controls)