364 So.3d 185
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- St. Bernard Parish Government sued on August 2, 2017 seeking damages and a declaration that two IT contracts (2012 Contract; 2014 Contract) were null and void ab initio, alleging parish employees used secret appointments to steer work to their private companies.
- Allegations: on Jan. 10, 2012 Parish President Peralta secretly appointed Richard Perniciaro and Harold Rosselli to director-level posts; Perniciaro and Rosselli then directed contracts and work to ParaTech (Perniciaro) and C.H.E.R. (Rosselli).
- ParaTech was awarded a formal IT contract Feb. 1, 2012 and another on Jan. 16, 2014; Rosselli recommended termination of the prior IT director Jan. 26, 2012.
- Defendants raised procedural exceptions: C.H.E.R. Defendants asserted prescription; Perniciaro asserted lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; ParaTech asserted lis pendens (consolidation with a 2014 suit).
- Trial court sustained all three exceptions on March 14, 2019 and dismissed the suit.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed all three rulings and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (Perniciaro) | Court has jurisdiction to hear Ethics Code-based claims for damages and declaratory relief | Court lacked jurisdiction over Perniciaro as to the Ethics-based claims | Reversed: trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction; exception improperly sustained |
| Lis pendens (ParaTech) | ParaTech failed to prove the other suit involved same transaction/parties; record incomplete | Two suits were pending over same transaction so later suit should be dismissed | Reversed: ParaTech did not meet its burden; record did not show same transaction/occurrence |
| Prescription (C.H.E.R.) | Prescription was suspended under contra non valentum (discovery rule); petition timely (filed 2017) | Delictual claims prescribed one year after 2014 contract (i.e., Jan. 16, 2015) | Reversed: prescription did not begin until the plaintiff discovered the operative facts (2017); exception improperly sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Plaquemines Parish Govt. v. Williams, 262 So.3d 1080 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2018) (recognizing trial court jurisdiction to adjudicate parish Ethics Code claims)
- Boudreaux v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 815 So.2d 7 (La. 2002) (court must examine subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Krecek v. Dick, 136 So.3d 261 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (framework for lis pendens: pending suits, same transaction/occurrence, same parties/capacities)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 474 So.2d 46 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1985) (party asserting lis pendens bears burden of proof)
- Wells v. Zadeck, 89 So.3d 1145 (La. 2012) (contra non valentum / discovery rule delays commencement of prescription)
- M.R. Pittman Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Govt., 182 So.3d 303 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (standard of review and prescription principles applied to delictual exceptions)