206 So. 3d 259
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Vernon Williams owned V.J.’s Hollywood Lounge in St. Bernard Parish; the Parish Council previously suspended/revoked permits in related litigation, and Williams successfully challenged loss of nonconforming-use status after Hurricane Katrina in earlier appeals.
- After rebuilding, Williams obtained state and parish alcohol permits and reopened V.J.’s on July 1, 2011; neighbors filed complaints about parking, noise, loitering, and urination outside the bar.
- An affidavit from neighbor Kevin Williams and four Sheriff’s incident reports prompted the Alcohol Beverage & Bingo Department to recommend revocation; the Council held hearings (Sept. 21 and Dec. 19, 2011), viewed a DVD from Kevin Williams, went into executive session, and voted to revoke the parish alcohol permit.
- Williams timely appealed the Council’s revocation to the district court (trial de novo); the district court admitted the Council hearing transcripts/recordings and incident reports, held a trial with live testimony, then affirmed the revocation and denied a new-trial motion.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether the district court conducted a proper trial de novo, whether admitted evidence was competent, whether the Council met its burden to prove cause for revocation, and whether the court erred in rejecting Williams’s Open Meetings and civil-rights claims.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court as to the revocation (vacating it) for lack of competent evidence to prove cause, but affirmed the district court’s rejection of Williams’s Open Meetings Law and §1982/§1983 claims (Williams failed to preserve proffered executive-session testimony and failed to make a prima facie civil-rights showing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court conducted a trial de novo | Williams: court improperly relied on administrative record rather than fresh trial | Council: admission of administrative record and exhibits appropriate; court held a de novo trial with live testimony | Court: trial was de novo (live testimony and new evidence were taken), but administrative-record hearsay cannot supply competent proof absent live testimony |
| Admissibility/competence of Council transcripts, DVD, and Sheriff incident reports | Williams: transcripts and incident reports are hearsay and inadmissible in de novo trial; reporting deputies must testify | Council: record and exhibits were part of the administrative proceeding and admissible | Court: transcripts/recordings may be admitted for limited purposes, but incident reports were hearsay and should have been excluded absent live testimony of reporting deputies; DVD was admitted but portions lacked specific dates/details |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support revocation (cause) | Williams: Council failed to prove by competent evidence that he permitted ordinance violations or endangered public safety | Council: neighbor complaints, DVD, and incident reports demonstrated parking, noise, loitering, and disturbances supporting revocation | Court: Council failed to meet its burden by a preponderance with competent evidence; generalized testimony and hearsay insufficient — revocation vacated |
| Open Meetings Law and executive-session evidence | Williams: Council’s executive session was unlawful and rendered action void; trial court improperly excluded executive-session testimony | Council: communications with counsel in executive session are privileged attorney-client communications | Held: Williams did not proffer excluded executive-session testimony as required after objection; absence of proffer bars appellate review — district court’s rejection of Open Meetings claim affirmed |
| Civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§1982, 1983 | Williams: Council acted with discriminatory intent and violated equal protection/due process | Council: insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or state-action violation | Held: Williams failed to produce a prima facie showing; evidence was insufficient to sustain §§1982/1983 claims — affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brossette v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 611 So.2d 1391 (La. 1993) (administrative-hearing hearsay cannot substitute for competent evidence at a trial de novo)
- Bibbins v. City of New Orleans, 848 So.2d 686 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2003) (trial de novo requires exclusion of hearsay from administrative record; burden on municipality to prove cause)
- Williams v. Parish of St. Bernard, 984 So.2d 937 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2008) (due-process notice requirement in Council enforcement actions)
- Williams v. Parish of St. Bernard, 49 So.3d 520 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (nonconforming-use status preserved after Katrina discontinuance)
- Pardue v. Stephens, 558 So.2d 1149 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1989) (distinguishing trial de novo from record-review under LAPA)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest-error standard on appellate review of factual findings)
- Romano v. Whitfield, 535 So.2d 12 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1988) (hearsay in administrative record is not competent evidence in subsequent court proceedings)