268 So. 3d 1257
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- City of Sterlington (Sterlington) granted Greater Ouachita Water Company (GOWC) franchise/use agreements (1996 Ordinance; 1998 Water Tower Agreement) giving GOWC operation, maintenance, and exclusive use of water mains, tower, and pumping station through 2016.
- Parties executed an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) in 2015 for Sterlington to buy GOWC infrastructure subject to conditions (including construction of a treatment plant); APA allowed Seller to terminate if Buyer failed conditions and required new franchise/use agreements if terminated.
- GOWC terminated the APA in 2017 for Sterlington’s failure to meet conditions and tendered extension agreements; Sterlington refused and filed an expropriation suit to acquire the infrastructure for $1.4M.
- Trial court dismissed Sterlington’s expropriation action as premature; GOWC sought and obtained attorney fees and costs for defending the suit; Sterlington did not appeal that award.
- After State health letters showed water-tower problems and GOWC obtained a permit to install remedial equipment, Sterlington denied GOWC contractor access; GOWC obtained a preliminary injunction ordering Sterlington not to prevent improvements.
- Sterlington did not pay the awarded fees/costs; GOWC obtained a writ of mandamus ordering Sterlington’s mayor to pay. Sterlington appealed the injunction and the mandamus; appellate court affirmed the injunction and reversed the mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted a preliminary injunction preventing Sterlington from blocking GOWC’s water-tower improvements | GOWC: irreparable harm possible (unsafe drinking water, impaired fire protection); prima facie right from APA/franchise agreements; injunction preserves status quo | Sterlington: GOWC failed to show possibility of irreparable injury | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; GOWC showed prima facie right and risk of irreparable harm; injunction appropriate to preserve status quo |
| Whether the trial court could issue a writ of mandamus compelling Sterlington to pay the attorney-fee judgment without a specific appropriation | GOWC: La. R.S. 19:201 designates the fund from which such awards are paid, making payment ministerial and mandamus proper | Sterlington: payment is discretionary until the city specifically appropriates funds; mandamus would usurp legislative/executive appropriation authority | Reversed — La. R.S. 19:201 mandates awarding fees and identifies source but does not remove appropriation discretion or authorize mandamus to compel payment; mandamus here violated separation of powers |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. West Virginia Oil & Gas Co., 373 So.2d 488 (La. 1979) (describes purpose and interlocutory nature of preliminary injunctions)
- Jazz Casino Co., L.L.C. v. Bridges, 223 So.3d 488 (La. 2017) (mandamus authorized where statute made refund procedure mandatory and specified timing)
- Newman Marchive P’ship, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 979 So.2d 1262 (La. 2008) (judgments against political subdivisions payable only from specifically appropriated funds; mandamus improper absent appropriation)
- Hoag v. State, 889 So.2d 1019 (La. 2004) (judicial powers and limits under separation-of-powers principle)
- Monroe Real Estate & Dev. Co. v. Sunshine Equip. Co., 805 So.2d 1200 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2002) (prima facie proof sufficient for preliminary injunction protecting a real right)
- R.H. Creager, Inc. v. Parish of St. Charles, 55 So.3d 884 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (upholding mandamus where statute expressly required court to issue mandamus to enforce payment)