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
2025-CA-0335
La. Ct. App.
Jun 4, 2025
Check Treatment
                                    RECORRECTED COPY

      DANILO AUGUSTO                                    *      NO. 2025-CA-0335
      FELICIANO
                                                        *      COURT OF APPEAL
      VERSUS
                                                        *      FOURTH CIRCUIT
      SUSAN HUTSON, IN HER
      OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS                              *      STATE OF LOUISIANA
      ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF
      AND NANCY RUTH LANDRY,                            *
      IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
      AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY                      *
      OF STATE                                 *******



JCL   LOBRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS

            I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the district

      court’s dismissal of this election contest.

            In Sens v. Plaisance,
365 So.3d 17
 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2020), and Plaquemines

      Parish Council v. Petrovich,
662 So.2d 542
 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1995), we reaffirmed

      that election statutes are to be construed strictly and the procedure expedited.

      While the majority draws analogical support from Brooks v. Tradesmen Intern.,

      Inc., 03-1871 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/04),
883 So.2d 444
, that case is procedurally and

      legally distinguishable. Brooks involved the discretionary application of La. C.C.P.

      art. 1672(A) in a general civil context and not an election contest governed by a

      rigid statutory scheme. The court in Brooks was not constrained by La. R.S.

      18:1409, which expressly bars rehearing or reconsideration under subsection (I).

      To adopt such reasoning would risk undermining the finality and uniformity that

      the election code seeks to preserve.

            Nevertheless, I must also acknowledge a concern that implicates the risk of

      both procedural fairness and access to justice. The record in this case does not

      reveal a willful failure to appear, nor a disregard for process. Instead, it reflects

      documented procedural confusion, stemming from a pro se litigant’s efforts or the

      difficulties posed by navigating an accelerated and complex legal process without


                                                    1
counsel. The absence of a statutory mechanism for rehearing under La. R.S.

18:1409(I) leaves little room for correction once judgment is entered. As such,

despite the equitable concerns, I must conclude that the law compels us to affirm

the district court’s dismissal.

      I therefore dissent from the majority’s reversal of the district court’s ruling

and would affirm the dismissal of the election contest.




                                          2