Neighbors of 200 Henry Clay Avenue and Audubon Riverside Neighborhood Association v. the Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of New Orleans, 335 So.3d 255

Owner of property at 200 Henry Clay Avenue built new helicopter landing facilities for Children’s Hospital; the City’s chief zoning official issued a zoning verification classifying the facility as a helistop.
Audubon Riverside Neighborhood Association and Neighbors of 200 Henry Clay Ave (Plaintiffs) appealed the zoning verification to the City’s Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA); the BZA upheld the verification.
Plaintiffs filed a verified petition in district court seeking review of the BZA decision naming only the BZA as defendant and requesting service on the BZA chairperson.
The City (via exceptions) argued the BZA is not a separate juridical entity and that Plaintiffs failed to serve the City; the trial court sustained exceptions for lack of procedural capacity and insufficiency of service and dismissed the petition without prejudice.
On appeal, this Court affirmed the exceptions (BZA is not separate; service on City required) but vacated the dismissal so Plaintiffs may be allowed to amend and properly serve the City; the Court also denied the City’s motion to dismiss under the law-of-the-case doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BZA is a separate juridical entity able to be sued	BZA is a quasi‑judicial, distinct entity and may be sued separately	BZA is an administrative board attached to the City and not a separate juridical person	BZA is not a separate juridical entity; plaintiffs had to name and serve the City (exception sustained)
Whether service on the BZA chair satisfied service on the City	Service on BZA chair was sufficient	Service on the Mayor or City Attorney is required for suits against the City	Service was insufficient; Plaintiffs failed to serve the City (exception sustained)
Whether dismissal without prejudice was proper without first allowing amendment	Trial court erred by dismissing without permitting amendment to cure defects	Dismissal was appropriate given the procedural defects	Trial court erred: plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to amend/serve under La. C.C.P. arts. 932–933; dismissal vacated in part and remanded
Whether the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine barred reconsideration on appeal	Plaintiffs: appellate review permitted	City: prior writ denial should preclude reconsideration	Law‑of‑the‑case did not apply because the prior writ denial had no substantive ruling; Motion to Dismiss denied

Roberts v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 634 So.2d 341 (La. 1994) (functional test for whether a local government entity is a separate juridical person)
State ex rel. Bringhurst v. Zoning Bd. of Appeal & Adjustment, 4 So.2d 820 (La. 1941) (zoning board is a creature of statute and has only statutory powers)
Petition of Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 278 So.2d 81 (La. 1973) (discussion of the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)
Bank One, Nat. Ass’n v. Velten, 917 So.2d 454 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (elaboration on law‑of‑the‑case limits)
Dejoie v. Medley, 945 So.2d 968 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006) (juridical person requirement for suing an entity)