Plaquemines Parish Gov't v. Williams
262 So. 3d 1080
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaquemines Parish Government (PPG) sued Byron Williams, Jr., his father Byron Sr., uncle Vernon Williams, Vernon Williams Trucking, LLC, and Byron & Vernon Enterprises, LLC alleging violations of the Governmental Employee Code of Ethics and parish charter (nepotism/illegal payments) for conduct between 2007–2014.
- Central allegation: while Byron Jr. served as PPG Public Works Director he approved/participated in transactions that benefited family businesses and received economic benefits in violation of La. R.S. 42:1111 and 42:1112.
- Key documentary evidence included a September 15, 2008 invoice addressed to PPG from Byron & Vernon Enterprises, LLC, and Byron Jr.’s 2014 ethics disclosure; defendants produced affidavits denying Byron Jr.’s involvement or that payments were made to the family companies.
- Defendants produced affidavits and payroll/check evidence showing Byron Jr. worked for Vernon Williams Trucking only after leaving PPG and that the September 2008 invoice was submitted in error, bore Vernon’s signature, was returned, and was not paid.
- Trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment (June 18, 2018), dismissing PPG’s claims with prejudice; appellate court converted the appeal to a supervisory writ and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Byron Jr. received unauthorized economic benefits in violation of La. R.S. 42:1111 | Byron Jr. obtained economic benefits via payments to family businesses tied to parish work | No payments to Byron Jr. or his family entities during his tenure; payroll shows post-tenure employment | No genuine dispute; no evidence Byron Jr. received benefits; no violation of 42:1111 |
| Whether Byron Jr. participated in transactions involving immediate family in violation of La. R.S. 42:1112 | Byron Jr. approved invoices from family businesses, creating disqualifying conflict | Byron Jr. lacked knowledge of the September 2008 invoice; invoice was submitted in error and not paid; uncles not "immediate family" | No genuine dispute; Byron Jr. did not participate with knowledge and invoice was not paid; no 42:1112 violation |
| Whether remaining defendants (family members / entities) violated 42:1112 or owe restitution to PPG | Family businesses received parish funds during Byron Jr.’s tenure and thus liability exists | 42:1112 imposes duties on public servants, not private businesses; no payments to Byron & Vernon Enterprises; uncle not covered by "immediate family" | No liability: statute restricts public servants, not private entities; no payments shown; claim fails |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because trial court weighed credibility / evidence | PPG asserted the court improperly weighed evidence and made credibility determinations | Defendants argued evidence (affidavits, depositions, payroll) established no genuine issue of material fact | Affirmed: appellate court held summary judgment appropriate because reasonable minds would reach only one conclusion given the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Urquhart v. Spencer, 204 So.3d 1074 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2016) (appellate court duty to consider subject-matter jurisdiction and final judgment requirements)
- Moon v. City of New Orleans, 190 So.3d 422 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2016) (requirements for final, appealable judgment)
- Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 151 So.3d 908 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2014) (conversion of appeal to supervisory writ when judgment defective but appeal timely)
- Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Const. Co., 179 So.3d 791 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (de novo standard and materials considered on summary judgment)