Case ID: so3d_233/html/0632-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GUIDRY, J. CRAIN, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOARD OF ETHICS IN the MATTER OF Jordan MONSOUR and Walter Monsour
    NUMBER 2016 CW 1156
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Judgment Rendered: JUNE 21, 2017
    Michael A. Patterson, S. Brooke Barnett-Bernal, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Applicant, Jordan Monsour
    Vivian Haley Williams, Kathleen M, Allen, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Respondent, Louisiana Board of Ethics
    BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, McClendon, crain and theriot, JJ.
   GUIDRY, J.

Un this writ application, applicant, Jordan Monsour, challenges the ruling of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board, Panel A, which overruled applicant’s objections to Exhibits 1 through 16 submitted by the Board of Ethics in opposition to applicant’s motion for summary judgment.

The companion case of Board of Ethics In the Matter of Jordan Monsour and Walter Monsour, 2016 CW 1159 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/21/17, also handed down this day, involves the same evidentiary issues. The background facts, procedural history, and analysis of these matters are set forth therein. For the reasons stated in the companion case, we reverse the evidentiary ruling of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board and remand for further proceedings.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated in Board of Ethics In the Matter of Jordan Monsour and Walter Monsour, 2016 CW 1159 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/21/17), the ruling of the Ethics Adjudicatory Board which admitted Exhibits 1 through 16 offered by the Board of Ethics is reversed. This matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this judgment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Crain, J. Dissents in part and assigns reasons.

McClendon, J. Dissents in part for the reasons assigned by Judge Crain.

CRAIN, J.,

dissenting in part.

|,I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 966 and 967 apply to summary judgment proceedings before the Ethics Adjudicatory Board. The EAB thus erred in admitting the exhibits at issue. However, given the uncertainty of the law prior to our ruling, the Board of Ethics, in opposing the motion for summary judgment, reasonably relied on the relaxed evidentia-ry rules otherwise applicable to administrative proceedings. For that reason, I would order the EAB to allow the Board, on remand, to submit evidence pursuant to Articles 966 and 967 prior to a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See La. Code Civ. Pro, arts. 2082 and 2164; Placid Refining Company v. Privette, 523 So.2d 865, 869-70 (on rehearing), writ denied, 524 So.2d 748 (La. 1988) (“The court of appeal may remand a case to the trial court for the taking of additional evidence where it is necessary to reach a just decision.”).