Archive
- December 2024
- November 2023
- July 2022
- October 2021
- August 2021
- March 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- November 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- December 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- December 2017
- September 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
ANOTHER APPELLATE SUCCESS
In Maqubool et al vs Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans the Plaintiffs filed two nearly identical lawsuits in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans seeking to enjoin the Sewerage and Water Board from contracting with a consultant to fill certain key vacancies. The first suit which involved an "RFP" was allotted to Judge Sidney Cates and resulted in the granting of each of the exceptions advanced by the Sewerage and Water Board and a dismissal of Plaintiffs' case which was not appealed. The second suit which involved an "RFQ" was allotted to Judge Kern Reese and resulted in various rulings in favor of Plaintiffs.. Defendant-Appellant, Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, appealed Judge Reese’s rulings which denied its Motion to Transfer, denied its Exceptions of Res Judicata, No Right of Action, No Cause of Action, Vagueness and/or Ambiguity, and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and granted, in part, Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Request for Preliminary Injunction. A three judge panel of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal consisting of Judges Roland L. Belsome, Daniel L. Dysart and Regina Bartholomew-Woods reversed Judge Reese’s judgment denying the motion to transfer, vacated the remainder of the judgment, and remanded with instructions.
In reaching its decision the panel in an opinion authored by Judge Bartholomew-Woods aptly observed:
In this instant matter, a transfer to Division “C,” the division that adjudicated
the initial action, was proper. The defendants and plaintiffs in both actions are the
same parties. Further, Appellees’ claims do not give rise to “different” relief; in
both the initial and subsequent filings, Appellees asserted irreparable harm as a
result of the RFP. Moreover, the RFQ seeks to fill the same positions as the RFP.
Thus, the RFQ does not present a different consideration. Under these
circumstances, we find that the trial court erred in denying the motion to transfer,
and reverse this ruling.
Kudos to Aaron & Gianna shareholders Bill Aaron and DeWayne Williams who represented the Sewerage and Water Board before the Court of Appeal.