265 So. 3d 976
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Three Grand Lodge members (Du Treil, Bruzik, Cognevich) sued the Grand Lodge, Grand Master Jenkins, and Deputy Grand Master Reinschmidt after letters and suspensions dated May 2018 threatened or suspended membership rights.
- Plaintiffs sought TRO, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and declaratory relief to restore membership, allow participation in the June 2018 Grand Lodge Communication, and require proper consideration of resolutions. TRO was granted; preliminary relief followed at trial.
- Defendants filed a dilatory exception of prematurity asserting plaintiffs had not exhausted internal remedies under the Grand Lodge’s Handbook of Masonic Law (HOML), specifically Article IV(Section 2) procedures for suspension and referral to the Appeals and Grievances Committee and ultimate review at the Annual Grand Communication.
- The trial court denied the exception, found defendants breached the HOML by suspending plaintiffs without following Article VII procedures, and ordered full participation for Bruzik, Du Treil, and Cognevich at the June meeting.
- On de novo review, the appellate court held Section 2 of Article IV authorized interim suspension until the Annual Grand Communication and that internal remedies remained available when suit was filed; plaintiffs failed to show administrative remedies were inadequate.
- Court reversed denial of prematurity, vacated injunction and declaratory relief, granted the exception, and dismissed the suit without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit was premature (failure to exhaust internal remedies) | Plaintiffs argued they were denied due process because suspensions should be prosecuted in their local lodges under Article VII | Defendants argued suspensions were valid under Article IV §2 and internal review (Appeals & Grievances, then Grand Communication) was available and not exhausted | Court held suit was premature: Article IV §2 authorized suspensions and internal remedies remained available; plaintiffs failed to show administrative remedies were inadequate |
| Proper procedural route for disciplinary action (Article IV v. Article VII) | Plaintiffs contended Article VII trials in local lodges applied and Article IV was misapplied | Defendants maintained Article IV governs suspensions for renouncing allegiance/open resistance and provides referral/review procedures | Court construed HOML de novo and found Article IV §2 applied to these suspensions |
| Appropriateness of injunctive relief restoring participation at annual meeting | Plaintiffs argued immediate judicial relief was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to membership and participation rights | Defendants argued injunction was premature because internal process could vindicate rights before or at the Annual Communication | Court vacated injunctive relief as plaintiffs sued before exhausting internal remedies |
| Whether plaintiff proved inadequacy of internal remedies | Plaintiffs argued remedies would be inadequate to protect due process rights | Defendants argued available steps (committee review, Grand Communication vote, reinstatement edict) were adequate | Court held plaintiffs did not prove administrative remedies were inadequate and therefore must exhaust them first |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1, 888 So.2d 782 (La. 2004) (defining when an action is premature)
- LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., L.L.C., 966 So.2d 519 (La. 2007) (prematurity and exhaustion analysis)
- Spradlin v. Acadia-St. Landry Med. Found., 758 So.2d 116 (La. 2000) (prematurity/administrative exhaustion principles)
- Brickman v. Bd. of Dirs. of W. Jefferson Gen. Hosp., 372 So.2d 701 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1979) (members must exhaust internal remedies when due-process hearing is available)
- Steeg v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 329 So.2d 719 (La. 1976) (burden-shifting on prematurity exception)
- Sevier v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 497 So.2d 1380 (La. 1986) (prematurity determined by facts at filing)
- Crooks v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 155 So.3d 686 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2014) (standard of review for prematurity issues involving law)
- Bossier v. Garber, 263 So.3d 576 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2018) (de novo review when construing administrative rules)