Opinion
2022 CA 0158.
09-16-2022
The CARTESIAN COMPANY, INC. and Greg Gachassin v. The DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ETHICS ADJUDICATORY BOARD PANEL A and The Louisiana Board of Ethics.
PENZATO, J.
The defendant, Louisiana Board of Ethics, filed this appeal seeking to reverse the trial court's judgment, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we find the Louisiana Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal. La. Const. Art. V, Sec. 5(D). Thus, we transfer the matter to the Louisiana Supreme Court. La. C.C.P. art. 2162; La. R.S. 13:4441.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiffs, The Cartesian Company, Inc. and Greg Gachassin, filed a petition for declaratory judgment in May 2018, challenging the constitutionality of a portion of La. R.S. 42:1113. Specifically, the plaintiffs asserted that the words "in any way interested in" contained in La. R.S. 42:1113(B) are unconstitutionally broad, vague, and general. According to the petition, the Ethics Adjudicatory Board (Panel A) previously relied on this language to find that the plaintiffs violated La. R.S. 42:1113(B) and imposed penalties for the violation. The plaintiffs prayed for judgment, declaring the phrase "in any way interested in" contained in La. R.S. 42:1113(B) to be "unconstitutionally general, vague, and overly broad, as purportedly interpreted and applied" to them by the defendants, the Division of Administrative Law Ethics Adjudicatory Board (Panel A) and the Louisiana Board of Ethics.
This court considered the merits of the proceeding against the plaintiffs before the Ethics Adjudicatory Board in Board of Ethics in Matter of Cartesian Co., Inc., 2016-1556 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/12/17), 233 So.3d 9, 28. Among other things, this court affirmed the fines imposed against the plaintiffs for violating La. R.S. 42:1113(B). Id.
The plaintiffs filed the motion for summary judgment at issue in April 2021, seeking judgment in their favor on the "facial challenge to the constitutionality of La. R.S. 42:1113(B)." The trial court granted the motion, and, via amended judgment signed on June 1, 2022, ruled that the words "in any way interested in" contained in La. R.S. 42:1113(B) "are hereby struck down, and declared of no effect, as violating both the Federal and State Constitutions...." The judgment concluded that these words are "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad" and "as interpreted and applied" to the plaintiffs in the proceedings before the Ethics Adjudicatory Board.
On May 9, 2022, this court issued an interim order, remanding the matter for the limited purpose of instructing the trial court to sign an amended judgment correcting the deficiencies identified in the original December 2, 2021 judgment. The record was supplemented on June 13, 2022 with an amended judgment, which remedied the deficiencies.
Because the judgment at issue declared a portion of La. R.S. 42:1113(B) facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, the Louisiana Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to La. Const. Art. V, Sec. 5(D). This court has no jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Johno v. Doe, 2016-0087 (La. 12/6/16), 218 So.3d 1004, 1006, recognizing that transfer to the Louisiana Supreme Court is proper where the court of appeal is deprived of jurisdiction pursuant to La. Const. Art. V, Sec. 5(D).
Louisiana Constitution Article V, Section 5(D) pertinently states that a case shall be appealable to the supreme court if a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional.
DECREE
IT IS ORDERED that this case be transferred to the Louisiana Supreme Court. La. C.C.P. art. 2162; La. R.S. 13:4441.