Case ID: so3d_192/html/0735-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael MUDGE, et al. v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH COUNCIL, et al.
    No. 2016-CA-0587.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 22, 2016.
    Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, Benjamin Warren Kadden, New Orleans, LA, Erin R. Rosenberg, for Appellant.
    Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James ; Augustus Burton, Megan Sara Peterson, Robert L. Redfearn, Jr., New Orleans, LA, Melvin Joseph Burmas-ter, Belle Chasse, LA, Shane Paul Landry, St. Francisville, LA, Joel Phillip Loeffel-holz, New Orleans, LA, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

| Jntervenor, NOLA Oil Company, Inc., invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 5(D), on the ground that the district court declared Plaquemines Parish Zoning Ordinance Section VI(M)(1)(b) unconstitutionally vague.

Pretermitting the merits, we find the district court’s judgment is procedurally defective. In particular, the record reveals the attorney general was not served with the pleading challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance as required by La.Code Civ. P. art. 1880. In Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., 94-1238 at p. 7 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 859, 864, this court explained, “[t]he attorney general is not an indispensable party; but, he must be served in declaratory judgment actions which seek a declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute.” The purpose of the service requirement in La.Code. Civ. P. art. 1880 is to ensure that the attorney general is “afforded the necessary opportunity to be heard as the codal article requires.” Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Gov’t, 07-2432, p. 5, fn. 6 (La.5/21/08), 982 So.2d 795, 801.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.