Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #025 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 5th day of May, 2009, are as follows:

BY VICTORY, J.:

2008-OC-2357

THE WILLOWS v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HOSPITALS (Parish of E. Baton Rouge) For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. AFFIRMED.

05/05/09

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 08-OC-2357 THE WILLOWS versus STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HOSPITALS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE VICTORY, J. We granted this writ application to determine whether the First Circuit Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to consider an appeal of a party aggrieved by a judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court in an action brought pursuant to the Louisiana Procurement Code, La. R.S. 39:1551, et seq. (the "Procurement Code"). After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeal and hold that the plaintiff has no right to appeal the decision of the district court under La. R.S. 39:1691(C) to the court of appeal. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This action arises from a lease dispute between the State of Louisiana and The Willows, a partnership comprised of four individuals, Robert Burns, Rodney Burns, Paul Davenport and Joseph Waitz. On April 3, 1978, Robert Burns1 and the

Although the lease was entered into between Robert Burns, Jr. and the State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Human Resources, in an "Affidavit Attesting That a Public Lease is Being Contemplated" attached to the lease, the parties to the lease were listed as Robert A. Burns, Jr., Henry T. Burns, and Joe Waitz. The defendants have argued that The Willows is not the proper party to bring this contract dispute claim; however, we did not grant this writ to consider this claim or the merits of the underlying claim. 1

1

Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources ("DHHR")2 entered into a five-year lease contract for an apartment complex, The Willows, in Houma, Louisiana owned by the plaintiff. The lease provided housing for participants of the residency program at the Leonard J. Chabert Medical Center. The original five-year lease was renewed in 1983, and then again in 1988 on a month-to-month basis. Throughout the lease period, numerous disputes arose concerning the maintenance of the apartments, and LSU-HSC eventually decided to locate other resident housing. In December of 2004, The Division of Administration, Office of Facility Planning and Control, solicited and received bids to lease other resident housing pursuant to the competitive bid process. The bid received from Burns/Willows was deemed to be non-responsive, and on December 8, 2004, LSU-HSC sent notice of their intent to vacate the premises effective January 31, 2005, and vacated the apartments. On April 18, 2005, The Willows filed a contract controversy complaint with the Chief Procurement Officer. Before a decision was rendered, The Willows also filed suit in the district court against DHHR on May 26, 2005 for breach of contract.3 On June 15, 2005, The Willows' contract controversy complaint was denied by the Chief Procurement Officer's designee, Jerry Jones. The Willows filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Administration, which the Commissioner considered and denied in a written opinion. The Nineteenth Judicial District Court held a hearing on the merits of The Willows' administrative appeal of the Commissioner of Administration's decision on
In 1991, the legislature transferred DHHR hospitals to the Louisiana Health Care Authority (LHCA). In 1997, these hospitals were transferred from LHCA to the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College ("LSU"). The LSU Health Sciences Center-New Orleans ("LSU-HSC") was made responsible for several hospitals, including the Leonard J. Chabert Medical Center. La. R.S. 17:1519.2. On November 14, 2005, The Willows filed a "First Supplemental and Amended Petition to Add Defendants" in the district court, adding as defendants the Board of Supervisors of LSU, the State of Louisiana, through the Division of Administration; Jerry Jones, and Patrick Gibbs. The individual defendants were later dismissed. 2
3 2

June 18, 2007.4 The district court affirmed the decision of the Commissioner on the merits and the judgment was signed on June 28, 2007. On July 30, 2007, The Willows filed a Petition for Devolutive Appeal, appealing the district court's June 28, 2007, judgment. On August 29, 2007, the Division of Administration filed a Motion to Strike The Willows' Petition for Devolutive Appeal. On October 15, 2007, the district court granted the Division's motion and that ruling was reduced to judgment on November 9, 2007. On October 29, 2007, The Willows filed a second Petition for Devolutive Appeal, appealing again that judgment signed on June 28, 2007, and the judgment rendered on October 15, 2007 (but signed on November 9, 2007), asserting the right to appeal based on Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 2082 and 2083. On January 2, 2008, the district court granted The Willows a devolutive appeal from the judgment rendered on October 15, 2007. On March 11, 2008, the First Circuit Court of Appeal, issued a Rule to Show Cause why The Willows' appeal should not be dismissed. On April 29, 2008, the court of appeal dismissed The Willows' appeal, finding that it did not have appellate jurisdiction over the district court's November 9, 2007 judgment because it was an unappealable, interlocutory judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1841. Further, the court found that it did not have appellate jurisdiction over the district court's June 28, 2007 judgment, citing Republic Fire and Cas. Ins. Co. v. State of Louisiana, Div. of Admin., Office of State Purchasing, 05-2001 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/28/06), 952 So. 2d 89, for the holding that no appeal lies from a decision of the district court under the Procurement Code. The Willows v. State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, 08-263 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/29/08). We granted the Willows writ

On October 16, 2006, the district court rejected The Willows' request for a trial de novo, ruling that the matter was before it on judicial review, rather than original hearing. 3

4

application to consider this issue. The Willows v. State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals, 08-2357 (La. 11/26/08), 997 So. 2d 541.

DISCUSSION The Procurement Code, with certain exceptions, governs contracts entered into by the State for the procurement of supplies, services, or major repairs as therein defined. La. R.S. 39:1673 applies to contract controversies, including breach of contract, mistake, misrepresentation, or other cause for contract modification or recision, and gives the chief procurement officer or his designee the authority to resolve any controversy, prior to the commencement of an action in court. As this case involves a lease dispute between a private party and the State, it is governed by the Procurement Code, specifically La. R.S. 39:1673. That statute provides that if the controversy is not resolved by mutual agreement, the chief procurement officer must promptly issue a decision in writing. La. R.S. 39:1673(C). That decision is final and conclusive unless the decision is fraudulent or the contractor has timely appealed administratively to the commissioner of administration in accordance with La. R.S. 39:1685. La. R.S. 39:1673(E). La. R.S. 39:1685 provides that the contractor must file its appeal with the commissioner within 14 days of the receipt of the decision under La. R.S. 39:1673(C) and that the commissioner must decide the controversy within 14 days. La. R.S. 39:1685(B)(C). This decision shall be final and conclusive unless fraudulent or

unless the contractor has timely appealed an adverse decision of the commissioner to the court in accordance with La. R.S. 39:1691(C). At the time this contract was entered into, La. R.S. 39:1691(C) provided: Actions by or against the state in connection with contracts

4

.... C. Actions under contracts or for breach of contract. The Nineteenth Judicial District Court shall have exclusive venue over an action between the state and a contractor who contracts with the state, for any cause of action which arises under or by virtue of the contract, whether the action is on the contract or for a breach of the contract or whether the action is for declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief. La. R.S. 39:1691. The discreet issue presented in this case is whether a party aggrieved by a decision rendered by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court under La. R.S. 39:1691(C) has a right of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Generally, the concept of allocation of jurisdiction in civil actions is trial in the district court, with the constitutional right to appeal to the court of appeal, La. Const. art. V,

Download 2008-OC-2357 THE WILLOWS v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HOSPI

Louisiana Law