Moretco, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish Council
112 So. 3d 287
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Moreteo, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction to bar Plaquemines Parish from applying two ordinances (second moratorium and zoning amendment) to its pending permit for a Walmart-related shopping center; the first moratorium expired in 2010, while the second moratorium and zoning amendment were enacted in early 2011 and 2011 respectively.
- Parish Ordinance 10-109 imposed a year-end moratorium on permits over $30,000 unless exempted by Council conditions (zoning, planning, traffic studies, impact fees, etc.).
- Ordinance 11-13 created a new moratorium (effective Jan 1, 2011) with an expanded list including Fire/EMS/police response time impacts; it lasted until Dec 31, 2011 or completion of a Master Plan.
- Ordinance 11-49 amended the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to require that retail establishments over 25,000 square feet be eligible only as Planned Unit Developments with site-plan review.
- Moreteo filed suit April 2011 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief; the trial court denied the preliminary injunction after trial in January 2012, and Moreteo appeals.
- The court rejected Moreteo’s claims that the ordinances were vague, retroactive, or an abuse of the Council’s power motivated by racial bias, concluding the ordinances had standards, were not retroactive to Moreteo’s unissued permit, and were reasonably related to parish welfare; the injunction was not warranted as Moreteo failed to show likely success on the merits or irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of the ordinances | Moreteo: ordinances lack standard guidance, enabling arbitrary enforcement | Council: ordinances provide standards and guidance | No impermissible vagueness; standards exist and decision-making is guided |
| Retroactivity and vested rights | Applying retroactively would violate due process | Permit applications do not vest rights; retroactive application permissible | Retroactive application does not violate due process; no vested rights in pending permit |
| Abuse of power / racial bias in enactment | Ordinances were enacted to target Moreteo due to racial bias | Evidence supports legitimate public welfare concerns; credibility issues resolved against Moreteo | No abuse of power established; no clear racial bias proven; ordinances count as valid zoning action |
Key Cases Cited
- Palermo Land Co., Inc. v. Planning Comm’n of Calcasieu Parish, 561 So.2d 482 (La. 1990) (vested rights and de novo review; zoning decisions require reasonable relation to public welfare)
- Asaro v. City of New Orleans, 54 So.3d 1214 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (permit applications and moratorium applicability; context matters for retroactivity)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (due process vagueness standard for laws affecting businesses; definitional standards or lack thereof)
- McCauley v. Albert E. Briede & Son, 90 So.2d 78 (La. 1956) (validity depends on presence of standard to guide administration; unbridled discretion invalid)
- Med Exp. Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Evangeline Parish Police Jury, 684 So.2d 359 (La. 1996) (economic regulation vagueness considerations; regulatory standards)