DANILO AUGUSTO FELICIANO v. SUSAN HUTSON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF AND NANCY RUTH LANDRY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE
NO. 2025-CA-0360
COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
JUNE 17, 2025
Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano
APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2025-05223, DIVISION “I-14” Honorable Lori Jupiter, Judge
* * * * * *
Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano
* * * * * *
(Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rachael D. Johnson, Judge Karen K. Herman, Judge Monique G. Morial)
BELSOME, C.J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS
Danilo Augusto Feliciano
400 Burgundy Street
New Orleans, LA 70112
PRO SE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Tracey J. Comeaux
John S. Williams
ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF‘S OFFICE
2800 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, SUSAN HUTSON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF
Celia R. Cangelosi
7914 Wrenwood Blvd., Suite D
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Caroline M. Tomeny
SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP
628 St. Louis Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, NANCY LANDRY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE
Madro Bandaries
MADRO BANDARIES, PLC
1127 2nd Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR/APPELLEE, DARREN LOMBARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT AND CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER
APPEAL DISMISSED
JUNE 17, 2025 AT 1:50 P.M.
JCL
RDJ
KKH
MGM
This matter arises from an election contest concerning a proposition submitted to voters in Orleans Parish on May 3, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the matter was heard in the district court and judgment was rendered dismissing the claims of Danilo Augusto Feliciano (“Appellant“). Appellant now seeks review of that judgment. Defendants, Nancy Landry in her official capacity as Louisiana Secretary of State and Susan Hutson in her official capacity as Orleans Parish Sheriff, filed motions to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the procedural record establishes that the appeal was not perfected in accordance with the requirements of
On May 27, 2025, Appellant filed a Petition Contesting Election challenging the results of a local proposition election held on May 3, 2025. Trial on the matter was held on June 12, 2025. The district court rendered judgment dismissing the petition at 2:29 p.m., and the written judgment was signed in chambers at 3:52 p.m. that same day. On June 13, 2025, Appellant filed a notice of appeal at 3:44 p.m. and submitted a cash bond to the clerk of court at 4:13 p.m., twenty-one minutes after the 24-hour statutory deadline had expired.
Appeals in election matters are governed by the expedited procedures set forth in
Our jurisprudence has consistently held that these timelines are jurisdictional in nature. The failure to comply deprives this Court of authority to consider the merits of the appeal. Dumas v. Jetson, 446 So. 2d 747, 749 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983); Cornelius v. Greggs, 21-0883, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/2/21), 329 So. 3d 314, 316; Sens v. Plaisance, 20-0382, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/12/20), 365 So. 3d 17, 18 (“Absent a timely filed motion for appeal, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal“)(quoting Joseph v. Egan Health Care Corp., 19-10, p. 3 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/6/19), 273 So. 3d 459, 462). In Sens and Plaquemines Par. Council v. Petrovich, 95-2263 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/18/95), 662 So. 2d 542, we reaffirmed that election statutes are to be construed strictly.
In Dumas, the court dismissed an election appeal where the bond was filed just twenty-two minutes beyond the 24-hour deadline. The court emphasized that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and that the timeframe for perfecting an appeal must be strictly enforced to ensure the timely resolution of election disputes. Id., 446 So. 2d at 479.
On a motion to dismiss an appeal, the burden of proof rests initially with the mover to demonstrate a jurisdictional defect, and in the case sub judice, the defect was the alleged untimely furnishing of the appeal bond. See PRCP-NS New Orleans, LLC v. Swanson, 22-0393, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/16/22), 354 So. 3d 239, 243. Once that prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the appellant to establish that the appeal was perfected in compliance with the strict 24-hour deadline imposed by
In this case, the district court‘s written judgment was signed at 3:52 p.m. on June 12, 2025. Accordingly, the statutory deadline for perfecting the appeal expired at 3:52 p.m. on June 13,
The record does not clearly indicate the precise time at which the trial judge signed the order of appeal and set the bond. However, Appellant failed to respond to the motions to dismiss, did not offer any evidence to rebut the time stamps, and did not explain or offer justification for the delay. When questioned at oral argument, Appellant provided no factual basis to dispute the 4:13 p.m. bond time or to demonstrate timely compliance.
Given the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the deadlines in election appeals, the absence of any contrary evidence or justification for the delay, and the jurisprudential mandate for strict construction, dismissal is warranted. See Dumas, 446 So. 2d at 749; Sens, 20-0382, p. 2, 365 So. 3d at 18. Under the clear language of
For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss the appeal are GRANTED. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
APPEAL DISMISSED