Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT, LATASHA COOK and ROBERT LEVI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT J. BLACK, in his individual and official capacities, and BOGALUSA CITY COURT,
Defendants.

Case No. COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION

I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Defendants Judge Robert J. Black (“Black”) and the Bogalusa City Court (“City

Court”) operate a modern-day debtors’ prison, jailing the poor for their failure to pay. Defendant

Black routinely orders individuals to jail for non-payment of monetary penalties for minor traffic

and misdemeanor offenses without inquiring into the reason for non-payment.

2. The City Court is funded off the backs of the poor. It substantially relies on the

court costs and fees it collects from criminal defendants. The City Court routinely covers at least

15% of its expenditures through income it generates from criminal defendants. This structural

conflict of interest creates an incentive for Defendant Black to find individuals guilty and to

coerce payment through the threat of jail. Without this money, the City Court could not

function.

3. This incentive is exemplified through Defendant Black’s creation of a $50

“extension fee” to raise additional money to operate the City Court. This extension fee is not

authorized by state law. However, Defendant Black gives individuals unable to pay their

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 31

monetary penalties in full a false choice: they may either go to jail for non-payment of fines and

costs or pay this illegal $50 extension fee to buy additional time to pay their monetary penalty.

4. Plaintiffs Rozzie Scott (“Scott”) and Ebony Roberts (“Roberts”) fear they will be

incarcerated for non-payment, forced to make an illegal payment, and deprived of due process by

having their cases decided by a biased judge at their upcoming court hearings. Neither has the

ability to pay the hundreds of dollars in fines and costs they owe the City Court.

5. Plaintiffs Scott, Roberts, Latasha Cook (“Cook”), and Robert Levi (“Levi”) were

previously victimized by this funding system and were forced to accept the false choice of

paying the illegal $50 extension fee to avoid being jailed. Each of these Plaintiffs paid the City

Court $50 to purchase their freedom.

6. Defendants’ unconstitutional practices have affected, and will continue to affect,

hundreds of low-income people with citations for traffic tickets or misdemeanor violations in the

City of Bogalusa, Louisiana. Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated to seek a declaration that Defendants’ practices are unconstitutional, to seek an

injunction to enjoin them from continuing these practices, and to seek damages to recover the

illegal extension fee for those who paid it in the past year.

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question jurisdiction).

8. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of

the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.

2

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 31
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 9. Plaintiff Ebony Roberts is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana. 10. Plaintiff Rozzie Scott is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana. 11. Plaintiff Latasha Cook is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana. 12. Plaintiff Robert Levi is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana. B. Defendants 13. Defendant Robert J. Black is the sole judge who sits on the Bogalusa City Court in Bogalusa, Louisiana. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. 14. Defendant Bogalusa City Court is a government entity located in Bogalusa, Louisiana.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Defendant Black Oversees and Administers the Bogalusa City Court. 15. Bogalusa is a town of about 12,000 people located in Washington Parish, Louisiana, approximately 1.5 hours north of New Orleans, Louisiana. The town’s economy centers on the lumber and paper mills. Nearly 36% of the population in Bogalusa lives below the poverty line. The median household income was $25,036 in 2015, less than half of the median household income in the United States. 16. The City Court is authorized to hear cases involving city ordinance violations, including traffic tickets and misdemeanors, which are committed within Ward Four of Washington Parish. Defendant Black is the only judge who sits on the City Court. 17. Defendant Black is elected to his position as judge of the City Court. 18. Defendant Black is authorized to appoint and remove clerks and deputy clerks for
3

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 31
the City Court. 19. Defendant Black possesses administrative, executive, and judicial powers over the
City Court. In his administrative capacity, Defendant Black is responsible for the orderly administration of the City Court. In his executive capacity, Defendant Black is responsible for the City Court’s finances, including creating a budget for the City Court and ensuring the City Court has sufficient funds to pay employee salaries and the City Court’s overhead expenses. Finally, in his judicial capacity, Defendant Black is responsible for impartially adjudicating municipal and misdemeanor cases before the City Court.
20. Defendant Black is authorized to create policies and rules for the conduct of judicial business before the City Court. This power includes practices with regard to the City Court’s collection of fines and court costs.
B. The Bogalusa City Court Systematically Jails and Threatens to Jail Individuals Who Cannot Pay Fines and Court Costs that Fund the City Court.
21. The Bogalusa City Court typically conducts criminal proceedings once per week, on Monday mornings and afternoons.
22. On behalf of the City Court, Defendant Black imposes a jail sentence against the majority of individuals who plead guilty or are found guilty after trial. However, he suspends most sentences on the condition that the individual pay fines and court costs. A suspended jail sentence is commonly referred to as “default time.”
23. If an individual cannot pay the fine and court costs in full on the sentencing date, Defendant Black orders the individual to return to the City Court by their “pay date.” The pay date functions as the deadline by which Defendant Black expects the individual to pay the fines and court costs.
4

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 31
24. The City Court does not accept partial payments or allow an individual to make payments on an installment plan. Any monetary obligation to the City Court must be paid in full.
25. During both the sentencing proceeding and subsequent pay date proceeding, Defendant Black does not inquire into the reasons for non-payment if an individual failed to pay the fines and court costs. Nor does he distinguish between those individuals who willfully refuse to pay and those who cannot pay due to their indigence.
26. Neither Defendant Black nor anyone acting on behalf of the City Court provides or appoints counsel to persons appearing at pay date proceedings.
27. Neither Defendant Black nor anyone acting on behalf of the City Court provides notice in advance of the pay date proceedings that the person’s ability to pay will be a critical issue at the hearing if they are unable to pay, or provides the individual during or before the hearing with a form (or its equivalent) designed to elicit information about the individual’s financial circumstances.
28. When a person appears at a pay date and does not have the money to pay the monetary penalty, Defendant Black often allows some individuals to pay a $50 “extension fee” to purchase their freedom and be permitted additional time to pay their monetary penalty.1
29. Defendant Black instructs those who cannot afford the $50 “extension fee” or who are not given that option to sit in seats at the front of the courtroom for the remainder of the court session.
30. A City Court marshal generally allows individuals to leave the courtroom to make
1 This extension fee is described in greater detail at Paragraphs 51 through 58.
5

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 6 of 31
phone calls to family and friends to try to arrange for payment while court remains in session. A marshal escorts out of the courtroom those individuals permitted to make phone calls to arrange for payment. The marshal stands by the individual while he or she attempts to contact family, friends, or co-workers to explain that he or she will be arrested and jailed if the fines and court costs are not paid by the end of the court session. If family, friends, or co-workers bring money to pay the fines and court costs to the courthouse before the end of the court session, the individual is allowed to pay and to leave.
31. At the end of the court session, the marshal walks those who could not pay down the courthouse steps and to the jail in an adjacent building, and books them into the City jail. Sometimes the marshal does this by handcuffing persons together.
32. The City Court clerk’s minute entries record when a person is sent to jail for nonpayment, noting that the person has failed to pay and is ordered to serve time in jail or to remain in jail until a certain amount is paid. To illustrate, in the sample minutes below, Defendant Black orders an individual to either serve “50 days default time” or pay $575.00 for not having proof of insurance or a license plate:
6

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 7 of 31 33. Any individual arrested for non-payment can be released from jail if the fine and court costs are paid in full or if the individual serves the default time. 34. The City’s jail logs document the amount of money an individual must pay or the amount of time the individual must serve to be released from jail. In the example below, an individual was ordered to serve 160 days in jail unless he paid a $724 “cash fine”:
35. If an individual fails to appear at the pay date, Defendant Black issues an attachment for the individual’s arrest and orders the individual to serve 15 days in jail or to pay a $250 cash bond. In the sample below, Defendant Black sentenced an individual to a pay or stay sentence of “15 days” in jail or a “$250.00 contempt fee”:
36. Defendant Black sometimes announces in open court when issuing such attachments that a person that fails to appear to pay can “buy their way out of jail.”
37. Defendant Black’s announcement that a person can “buy their way out of jail” is reflected in the jail logs. In the example below, an individual paid a fine of $250 to “shorten
7

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 8 of 31 [her] sentence of 15 days”:

C. The Bogalusa City Court Substantially Relies on Court Costs and Fees to Fund its Court Operations.

38. The State of Louisiana does not have a unified funding system for the State’s

courts and does not oversee the budgets of city courts. Instead, as the Louisiana Supreme Court

reported to the Legislature in 2014, self-generated and local funds—not state funds—represent

the largest sources of revenue in the majority of courts. As the Louisiana House of

Representatives has noted, city courts are funded through the use of court costs and fees that are

imposed on those persons appearing before the City Court.

39. The City Court’s operating expenses are paid through four sources of revenue: the

State of Louisiana, the Washington Parish Government, the City of Bogalusa, and the City Court

itself through assessments of certain costs and fees.

40. The funds the City of Bogalusa, Washington Parish, and the State of Louisiana

provide for the City Court, however, are insufficient to cover the City Court’s operating

expenses. The following table illustrates the City Court’s total revenue from the City, Parish,

and State (“Total Governmental Funding”); its total expenditures; its shortfall; and the shortfall

as a percentage of total expenditures, for 2009 to 2014:

Year
2009 2010

Bogalusa City Court Governmental Revenues and Expenditures

2009-2014

Total Governmental Total

Shortfall Shortfall as % of

Funding

Expenditures

Expenditures

$109,062

$161,310

$52,248

32.4%

$120,509

$176,171

$55,662

31.6%

8

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 9 of 31

2011 2012 2013 2014

$210,049 $212,910 $253,641 $280,357

$280,043 $293,024 $364,000 $386,934

$69,994 $80,114 $110,359 $106,577

25% 27.3% 30.3% 27.5%

41. The remainder of the City Court’s operating expenses not funded by the

contributions of the State, Parish, and City are funded through court costs and fees collected in

criminal cases; court fees collected in civil cases; and reserves of these same fees collected in

prior years.

42. Defendant Black is authorized under multiple state statutes to assess a variety of

court costs in criminal cases. Although most of these court costs are disbursed to other entities,

Defendant Black is also authorized to assess up to $30 under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 against

every defendant who is found guilty or forfeits his bond. This court cost is different than other

court costs because Defendant Black is authorized by state statute to keep and spend the money

generated under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 to support the City Court’s operations.

43. As the top official of the City Court, Defendant Black, in his administrative and

executive capacity, has the sole discretion over how to spend the money generated under La.

Stat. Ann. § 13:1899.

44. In his administrative and executive capacity, Defendant Black has established a

practice of assessing $30 in some cases under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 and $29.50 in other cases,

depending on the charge. He has created and authorized a case costs schedule for the City Court

that reflects whether to charge $30 or $29.50 based on the charge.

45. When imposing a monetary penalty, Defendant Black specifies a specific fine

amount and then refers generally to “costs.” The specific amount of costs is later assessed by a

court employee based on the schedule.

46. In his administrative and executive capacities for the City Court, Defendant Black

9

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 10 of 31
has ordered the Clerk of Court to create a “judicial expense” account for the City Court and instructed the clerks to deposit the statutory court costs under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 into that account. In addition to these costs, the judicial expense account consists of money collected from extension fees and contempt fees for non-payment and failure to appear. No other sources fund the City Court’s judicial expense account.
47. Costs assessed against criminal defendants comprise a substantial portion of the City Court’s yearly operating budget. For example, the City Court generated nearly $57,000 for its “judicial expense” account in 2014 through court costs assessed under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899, extension fees, and contempt fees for non-payment—an amount that represented approximately 15% of the City Court’s operating budget. In 2015, the City Court generated even more court-controlled revenue—at least $64,000 in judicial expense funds from court costs and fees and at least $5,000 in extension fees—an amount that represented about 20% of the City Court’s revenues and expenditures in its proposed operting budget.2
48. Defendant Black controls the judicial expense account in his executive and administrative capacity for the City Court and has sole discretion under state law to determine how these funds are allocated to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses.
49. If a person is unable to pay, Defendant Black possesses alternative tools to serve the City Court’s peneoligical interests, including remitting some of the fines and court costs assessed (including the court cost retained by the City Court pursuant to La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899); collecting the fines and costs as a money judgment in a civil case rather than by using
2 The City Court’s final operating budget—showing both proposed and actual income and expenditures—is reflected in an annual audit report created by the Legislative Auditor’s office; for fiscal year 2015 that audit report will likely be published in late July 2016.
10

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 11 of 31
criminal sanctions; and creating alternative punishments. Defendant Black may not jail that person for nonpayment without first finding that the nonpayment was willful.
50. The manner in which Defendants fund the City Court creates a structural conflict of interest between Defendant Black’s duty to impartially adjudicate cases and his executive responsibility to raise money to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses. The City Court cannot operate if Defendant Black does not find defendants guilty and does not successfully collect court costs and fees from a substantial number of individuals who appear before him.
D. The Bogalusa City Court Has Created an Illegal Extension Fee to Generate Additional Revenue.
51. In his executive and administrative capacities, Defendant Black created a $50 “extension fee” on behalf of the City Court. The money collected through this extension fee is used to pay for the operations of the City Court.
52. The “extension fee” is not authorized by state law. 53. City courts are not authorized to create new court costs and fees under state law; that authority is limited to the Louisiana State Legislature. 54. Through the creation of this fee, the City Court authorized Defendant Black, acting in his judicial capacity, to offer a false choice to individuals who cannot pay fines and court costs by the pay date: either (a) pay the extension fee by the end of the court session (or in some cases, shortly after booking) and be granted additional time to pay the fines and court costs, or (b) go to jail until all fines and costs are paid or the underlying sentence is served. 55. The $50 “extension fee” is not memorialized in an order because it is not actually ordered by Defendant Black. Rather, it is treated by the City Court as an alternative collection method, to permit the person to pay more in order to have additional time to try to pay the monetary penalty.
11

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 12 of 31
56. If a person is not able to pay the illegal $50 extension fee before the end of court, she is processed into the jail. But if she obtains it shortly after being jailed, she may be permitted to be released, as reflected in the jail records. For example, in the below jail log excerpt, the person was jailed at 2:52pm and was released 19 minutes later, after paying the extension fee:
57. The money collected as an extension fee is not credited toward an individual’s fines or court costs. Instead, it is treated as a separate and additional fee.
58. In 2015, the City Court collected the extension fee from at least 100 individuals, netting at least $5,000 to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses.
E. Plaintiffs Ebony Roberts and Rozzie Scott Face Unconstitutional Treatment at Upcoming Court Dates and Have Been Subjected to Unconstitutional Policies and Practices in the Past. i. Plaintiff Rozzie Scott
59. Plaintiff Rozzie Scott appeared in front of Defendant Black on May 12, 2016, and was found guilty of stealing $5 worth of food from a local store to feed his family.
60. Defendant Black ordered Mr. Scott to pay a $450 fine plus costs on or before June 13, 2016.
61. Mr. Scott returned to the City Court on June 13, 2016, but did not have the money to pay his fine and court costs. After telling Defendant Black that he could not pay, Defendant Black asked him if he had $50 for an extension of time to pay the fine and costs.
12

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 13 of 31
62. After Mr. Scott told Defendant Black that he did not have $50, Defendant Black told Mr. Scott to sit in a chair on the side of the courtroom and wait for his arrest. Defendant Black never asked him why he did not have the money or whether he was working.
63. While Mr. Scott waited, Defendant Black told other defendants that they would go to jail if they could not pay the extension fee or their fines plus costs.
64. At the end of court, Mr. Scott was arrested and booked into the City jail, where he spent about four hours until his cousin paid the $50 extension fee for his release.
65. After Mr. Scott was released from jail, he was told that he had to pay the fine plus costs on or before July 25, 2016.
66. Mr. Scott faces an imminent threat that he will be jailed because he cannot afford to pay the $450 fine plus costs that he owes the City Court on or before July 25, 2016.
67. Mr. Scott’s right to an impartial judge will be violated if he is forced to appear in the City Court on July 25, 2016. The City Court’s unconstitutional funding structure creates an appearance that Defendant Black cannot impartially adjudicate whether Mr. Scott willfully failed to pay because Defendant Black has a financial interest in extorting money from him to pay for the City Court’s continued operation.
ii. Plaintiff Ebony Roberts 68. Plaintiff Ebony Roberts appeared in front of Defendant Black on March 21, 2016, and pleaded guilty to speeding and driving without a license. 69. Defendant Black sentenced Ms. Roberts to pay a fine amount, plus costs on or before April 25, 2016, for speeding and for driving without a license. She later learned it was a total of about $367.50 in fines and court costs for the speeding ticket and $262.50 in fines and court costs for the ticket for driving without a license.
13

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 14 of 31
70. Ms. Roberts returned to the City Court on April 25, 2016, but did not have the money to pay her fines and court costs. Defendant Black did not ask Ms. Roberts whether she was working or why she could not pay. He did not offer her a payment plan or community service. He told Ms. Roberts she had to pay the fines and costs or she would go to jail for not paying her traffic tickets.
71. After Ms. Roberts paid the $50, she was ordered to return to the City Court on June 13, 2016, to pay the fines and court costs on her two traffic tickets.
72. Ms. Roberts returned to the City Court on June 13, 2016, and paid $262.50 on her ticket for driving without a license after borrowing the money from her family. However, she did not have the money to pay her fine or court costs on the speeding ticket. Defendant Black did not give Ms. Roberts an opportunity to tell him that she did not have any money and was just trying to do her best to take care of her two-year-old daughter.
73. Before Ms. Roberts could say anything, Defendant Black told her “this was [her] last extension.” A court employee then escorted her out of the courtroom to pay an additional $50. There were so many people standing in line to pay the extension fee that there were even a couple of people that could not fit in the courthouse and had to stand outside.
74. After Ms. Roberts told a court employee that she could not pay $50, he told Ms. Roberts that she could not leave the City Court and would go to jail if she did not pay the money. He ordered Ms. Roberts to go back into the courtroom where several other people were also facing arrest for non-payment.
75. Ms. Roberts’s boyfriend left the City Court to get $50 as fast as he could to purchase Ms. Roberts’s freedom. She now has until July 25, 2016, to pay the $367.50 she owes the City Court or she will go to jail for not paying her traffic ticket.
14

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 15 of 31
76. Ms. Roberts faces an imminent threat that she will be jailed because she cannot afford to pay the $367.50 that she owes the City Court on or before July 25, 2016.
77. Ms. Roberts’s right to an impartial judge will be violated if she is forced to appear in the City Court on July 25, 2016. The City Court’s unconstitutional funding structure creates an appearance that Defendant Black cannot impartially adjudicate whether Ms. Roberts willfully failed to pay because Defendant Black has a financial interest in extorting money from her to pay for the City Court’s continued operation.
F. Plaintiffs Latasha Cook and Robert Levi Paid an Illegal $50 Extension Fee in Their Criminal Cases before a Judge with an Unconstitutional Conflict of Interest. i. Plaintiff Latasha Cook
78. Plaintiff Cook appeared in front of Defendant Black on June 1, 2015 and pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace.
79. Defendant Black sentenced Ms. Cook to a suspended sentence of 90 days in jail with the condition that she pay a $300 fine plus court costs and complete substance abuse treatment.
80. Ms. Cook returned to the City Court on July 13, 2015, but did not have the money to pay the fine and court costs because she was unemployed and her only source of income at the time was the disability check she received each month.
81. Defendant Black did not ask Ms. Cook why she did not have the money to pay her fine and court costs. Instead, Ms. Cook paid the City Court the $50 extension fee to receive additional time to pay the fine and court costs.
82. Ms. Cook has previously gone to jail because she did not have the money to pay her fine and court costs. Judge Black asked Ms. Cook on that date whether she had $50 to pay
15

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 16 of 31
for a new court date. Because she did not have $50 in her pocket, a marshal handcuffed Ms. Cook and booked her into the City jail.
ii. Plaintiff Robert Levi 83. Plaintiff Levi appeared in front of Defendant Black in November 2015 and pleaded guilty to running a stop sign and driving with expired insurance. 84. Defendant Black sentenced Mr. Levi to pay a $100 fine plus court costs and 30 days default time for driving with expired insurance and a $50 fine plus court costs and 15 days default time for running a stop sign. 85. Mr. Levi returned to the City Court in January 2016, but did not have the money to pay his fine and court costs. Judge Black did not ask him why he did not have the money at his January 2016 court date. Instead, Mr. Levi observed two people arrested for not paying fines and court costs. Mr. Levi was scared that he would go to jail, too, because he did not have the money to pay his traffic tickets. 86. Mr. Levi overheard a city court employee tell a woman that she could pay an additional $50 for an extension of time to pay instead of going to jail. 87. Mr. Levi agreed to pay $50 in addition to his fine and court costs because he realized he would go to jail if he did not pay it. He had planned to use that money to pay for other bills that day, which he was late paying after giving the money to the City Court. 88. Mr. Levi returned to the City Court in March 2016 to pay his fine and court costs, but was $40 short of the amount he owed. He asked a city court employee outside of the courtroom whether he could make a partial payment. The city court employee told him that Judge Black “does not take partial payments” and that he “better call somebody!” because Judge Black is “gonna lock you up!” if he did not come up with the remaining $40.
16

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 17 of 31

89. Mr. Levi borrowed the outstanding $40 from a friend and paid his traffic tickets in

full to avoid going to jail.

V.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

90. Plaintiffs seek to certify a Class and Subclass for equitable relief, and a separate

Class for damages.

91. Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott seek class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(a) and (b)(2), related to Claim One only. This class is defined as: All individuals who will

appear in the Bogalusa City Court for criminal cases or who have unpaid fines and costs assessed

by and owed to the City Court. This class is referred to as the “Structural Bias Equitable Class.”

92. Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott seek certification of a Subclass pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), related to Claims Two, Three, Four and Six only. This subclass is

defined as: All individuals who were or will be adjudicated guilty in the Bogalusa City Court,

who have been or will be given a future date by which to return to City Court, and who have not

paid the assessed fines and costs in full prior to returning to City Court. This Subclass is referred

to as the “Pay Date Equitable Subclass.” All members of the Pay Date Equitable Subclass are

also members of the Structural Bias Equitable Class.

93. Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi seek class certification pursuant Fed. R.

Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), related to Claim Five only. This class is defined as: Any individual that

paid an extension fee between June 22, 2015 and the present. This class is referred to as the

“Extension Fee Damages Class.”

94. Rule 23(a)(1), Impracticability of Joinder: The precise size of the classes and

subclass are unknown by Plaintiffs but is substantial. The Structural Bias Equitable Class is

forward-looking and consists of persons appearing in approximately 3,000 criminal traffic and

17

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 18 of 31
misdemeanor cases filed in the Bogalusa City Court per year. The Pay Date Equitable Subclass is forward-looking and consists of persons who may be subjected to paying an illegal extension fee or being put in jail for non-payment; in the past year this occurred to more than 40 persons. The Extension Fee Damages Class consists of persons who paid the extension fee in the last year, which occurred at least 100 times. Many classes and most subclasses are comprised of low-income individuals who will likely lack independent resources to bring an independent action or to be joined in this action. Joinder of every member of the class and the subclass would be impracticable.
95. Rule 23(a)(2), Commonality: Plaintiffs raise claims based on questions of law and fact that are common to, and typical of, the putative class members they seek to represent.
a. Questions of law and fact common to the Structural Bias Equitable Class include:
i. Whether the City Court has a policy of assessing either $30 or $29.50 in court costs according to a fee schedule;
ii. Whether court costs are imposed when individuals in the City Court are adjudicated guilty but not when they are adjudicated not guilty;
iii. Whether Defendant Black conducts an inquiry into abilty to pay before ordering an individual to jail for non-payment of fines and court costs;
iv. Whether judicial expense funds are used to pay for the City Court’s operating and other expenses;
v. What percentage of the City Court’s total budget is derived from judicial expense funds;
vi. Whether Defendant Black has control over the allocation of
18

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 19 of 31
judicial expense funds in his executive capacity for the City Court; vii. Whether court costs, extension fees, and contempt fees are
deposited into the judicial expense account; viii. Whether the City Court created a $50 “extension fee;” ix. Whether the City Court permitted Defendant Black to offer to
some defendants the option of paying a $50 extension fee to buy their freedom and additional time to pay their monetary penalties;
x. Whether Defendant Black has a policy or practice of sentencing an individual to serve 15 days in jail or to pay a $250 contempt fee if the individual fails to appear to pay her fines and court costs;
xi. Whether the City Court’s funding structure creates a structural conflict of interest that violates due process; and
xii. Whether injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate and if so, what the terms of such relief should be.
b. Questions of law and fact common to the Pay Date Equitable Subclass include:
i. Whether Defendant Black appoints counsel at pay date proceedings or provides alternative safeguards;
ii. Whether Defendant Black assesses a person’s ability to pay prior to their jailing for non-payment;
iii. Whether Defendant Black assesses alternatives to incarceration prior to jailing persons for non-payment who were unable to pay;
iv. Whether the City Court has a policy or practice of authorizing
19

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 20 of 31
Defendant Black to offer to some defendants the option of paying a $50 extension fee to buy their freedom and additional time to pay their monetary penalties;
v. Whether Defendant Black assesses a person’s ability to pay prior to offering a $50 extension fee to some people during pay dates;
vi. Whether it is lawful for Defendant Black to order individuals to jail for non-payment of fines and court costs without inquiring into, and making factual findings about, an individual’s ability to pay;
vii. Whether it is lawful for Defendant Black to threaten incarceration but to permit individuals to pay a $50 extension fee to stay out of jail;
viii. Whether it is lawful for Defendant Black to order individuals to jail for non-payment of fines and court costs without providing counsel at the time of jailing, and without providing any sort of notice regarding the purpose of the pay date hearing in advance of said hearing or other procedural safeguards; and
ix. Whether injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate and if so, what the terms of such relief should be.
c. Questions of law and fact common to the Extension Fee Damages Class include:
i. Whether court costs, extension fees, and contempt fees are deposited into the judicial expense account;
ii. Whether the City Court created a $50 “extension fee;” iii. Whether the City Court permits Defendant Black to offer to some individuals the option of paying a $50 extension fee to buy their freedom and additional time to pay their monetary penalties;
20

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 21 of 31
iv. Whether any state law authorizes the City Court to charge individuals an extension fee in order to receive additional time to pay fines and court costs;
v. Whether due process permits offering a choice between paying an unauthorized extension fee or going to jail for non-payment; and
vi. Whether damages are appropriate and if so, what the terms of such relief should be.
96. Rule 23(a)(3), Typicality: The claims of Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi are typical of those asserted on behalf of the proposed classes and subclass. The injuries of Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi all arise out of Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs.
97. Rule 23(a)(4), Adequacy: Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed classes and subclass. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center, who have experience in class-action litigation involving civil rights law, as well as experience litigating policies and practices in municipal courts that are unconstitutional. Counsel has the resources, expertise and experience to prosecute this action. Counsel knows of no conflict among members of the proposed class.
98. Rule 23(b)(2): Defendant Black has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Structural Bias Equitable Class and Pay Date Equitable Subclass, making declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class and subclass as a whole appropriate and necessary.
99. Rule 23(b)(3): The common questions of fact and law predominate over the questions of law and fact affecting individual members of the Extension Fee Damages Class, and a class action is a superior method to adjudicate these claims, making it appropriate to decide the damages claims through the class mechanism. Particularly, the factual and legal questions
21

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 22 of 31
surrounding the general policies and practices of the City Court apply equally to all members of the Damages Class. Furthermore, class members have little ability to pursue these claims individually, and it would be in the interest of judicial economy to adjudicate the constitutionality of the City Court’s policies and practices in one proceeding.
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Structural Conflict of Interest – Due Process) Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, and the Structural Bias Equitable Class versus Defendant Black in His Individual and Official Capacities 100. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 101. The Due Process Clause requires Defendant Black to impartially adjudicate cases as well as maintain the appearance of impartiality. 102. Defendant Black exercises judicial functions when presiding over cases in the City Court and executive functions over the City Court’s finances and collection practices. 103. Defendant Black, in his administrative and executive role, has the duty to create a budget and to raise money to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses, and he has the ultimate discretion and control over spending court costs, extension fees, and contempt fees deposited into the judicial expense account. 104. Defendant Black, in his executive and administrative role, and as the final policymaker for the City Court, established a policy, practice, or custom of creating a budget that relies on judicial expense funds to make up a substantial part of the City Court’s budget. This policy, practice, or custom is the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
22

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 23 of 31
105. The manner in which the City Court is funded creates a structural conflict of interest between Defendant Black’s duty to impartially adjudicate cases and his executive responsibility to raise money to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
106. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future, and will appear before a judge with a structural conflict of interest. The City Court’s funding structure creates an appearance that Defendant Black cannot impartially adjudicate whether Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott willfully failed to pay because Defendant Black has a financial interest in extorting money from them to pay for the City Court’s continued operation.
107. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, on behalf of themselves and the Structural Bias Equitable Class, seek a declaration and injunction against Defendant Black in his individual and official capacities to prevent future injury resulting from the conflict of interest created by Defendant Black acting under color of law in his individual and official capacities.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Bearden Violation — Due Process and Equal Protection) Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass versus Defendant Black in His Individual and Official Capacities 108. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 109. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses prohibit incarcerating individuals for nonpayment without first determining that they willfully refused to make a monetary payment.
23

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 24 of 31
110. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future and will likely be unable to pay their monetary penalties. Pursuant to his practice, Defendant Black will likely fail to make an inquiry into Plaintiffs’ ability to pay before sentencing them to jail for nonpayment.
111. Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, as well as those similarly situated, will be subject to confinement and other imminent injury in the future if Defendant Black’s policies, practices, and customs are not declared to be unconstitutional.
112. Declaratory relief is likely unavailable because Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott are required to appear in the City Court on July 25, 2016. There will likely not be sufficient time before their July 25, 2016 hearing for this Court to reach a final determination on Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim. As such, Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, as well as those similarly situated, alternatively seek a preliminary injunction to protect them from the injuries that will be caused by Defendant Black’s unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs.
113. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, on behalf of themselves and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass, seek a declaration, or if unavailable, a preliminary injunction, to prevent future injury caused by Defendant Black acting under color of state law in his individual and official capacities.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(Right to Counsel – Due Process) Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass versus
Defendant Black in His Individual and Official Capacities 114. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
24

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 25 of 31
115. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future, and will likely be unable to pay their monetary penalties. Pursuant to his practice, Defendant Black will likely fail to appoint counsel or provide alternative safeguards before requiring them to pay an illegal $50 extension fee or ordering them to jail for non-payment. Defendant Black also will not provide notice to Plaintiffs that their ability to pay will be a critical issue in these proceedings.
116. The practices described in the previous paragraph constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
117. Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, as well as those similarly situated, will be subject to payment of an illegal fee, confinement, and other imminent injury in the future if Defendant Black’s policies, practices, and customs are not declared to be unconstitutional.
118. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, on behalf of themselves and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass, seek a declaration to prevent future injury caused by Defendant Black acting under color of state law in his individual and official capacities.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(Substantive Due Process) Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass versus Defendant Black in His Individual and Official Capacities 119. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 120. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from depriving someone of liberty or property in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 121. Defendant Black, in his executive and administrative role, and as the final
25

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 26 of 31
policymaker for the City Court, established a policy, practice, or custom of creating an “extension fee” that persons could pay in order to avoid going to jail. This policy, practice, or custom is the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
122. Defendant Black’s policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions risk conditioning Plaintiffs Roberts’ and Scott’s liberty on paying an illegal extension fee to the City Court’s judicial expense account.
123. Conditioning an individual’s liberty on the payment of the extension fee is arbitrary and capricious because there is no statutory or other authority for the extension fee, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
124. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future, and will likely be unable to pay their monetary penalties. Pursuant to his practice, Defendant Black will likely order Plaintiffs to jail for non-payment if they fail to pay the $50 extension fee.
125. Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, and those similarly situated, will be subject to confinement and imminent injury if Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are not declared to be unconstitutional.
126. Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, on behalf of themselves and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass bring this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken by Defendant Black under color of state law and seek a declaration against Defendant Black in his individual and official capacities to prevent future injury.
26

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 27 of 31
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(Extension Fee — Procedural Due Process) Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, Levi, and the Extension Fee Damages Class versus
Defendants Bogalusa City Court and Defendant Black in his Official Capacity 127. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 128. Defendant Black, in his executive and administrative role, and as the final policymaker for the City Court, established a policy, practice, or custom of creating an “extension fee” that persons could pay in order to avoid going to jail. This policy, practice, or custom is the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 129. Defendant Black, in his judicial capacity, utilizes this policy, practice, or custom to deprive individuals of their property in a manner not authorized by state law by having them pay a $50 extension fee to Defendant City Court to avoid going to jail for non-payment of their monetary penalties. 130. Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi and the proposed Extension Fee Damages Class have paid the extension fee to the City Court. 131. Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi and the proposed Extension Fee Damages Class have a property interest in the extension fee they paid to the City Court. 132. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their property in a manner not authorized by state law by having them pay a $50 extension fee to avoid going to jail for non-payment of their monetary penalties. 133. Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi, on behalf of themselves and the Extension Fee Damages Class, bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken by Defendant Black under color of state law and seek an award of damages for their injuries from
27

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 28 of 31
Defendant Bogalusa City Court and Defendant Black, sued in his official capacity, by charging Plaintiffs the illegal extension fee.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(Extension Fee — Procedural Due Process) Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass versus
Defendant Black in his Individual and Official Capacities 134. Plaintiffs re–allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 135. Defendant Black, in his executive and administrative role, and as the final policymaker for the City Court, established a policy, practice, or custom of creating an “extension fee” that persons could pay in order to avoid going to jail. This policy, practice, or custom is the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 136. Defendant Black, in his judicial capacity, utilizes this policy, practice, or custom to deprive individuals of their property in a manner not authorized by state law by having them pay a $50 extension fee to Defendant City Court to avoid going to jail for non-payment of their monetary penalties. 137. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott and members of the Pay Date Equitable Subclass and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future and will likely be unable to pay their monetary penalties. Pursuant to the City Court’s practice, Defendant Black is authorized to and likely will offer Plaintiffs and the Subclass a false choice: either pay the illegal $50 extension fee or go to jail. 138. Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott have a property interest in the $50 extension fee they will be asked to pay pursuant to the Bogalusa City Court policy. 139. Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, as well as those similarly situated, will be subject to
28

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 29 of 31
payment of an illegal fee, in the future if Defendant’s policies, practices, and customs are not declared to be unconstitutional.
140. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, on behalf of themselves and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass, seek a declaration and an injunction, to prevent future injury caused by Defendant Black acting under color of state law in his individual and official capacities.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action; b. Certification of a class, referred to above as the Structural Bias Equitable Class, under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, represented by Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, related to Claim One; c. Certification of a subclass, referred to above as the Pay Date Equitable Subclass, under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, represented by Plaintiffs Roberts and Scott, related to Claims Two, Three, Four, and Six; d. Certification of a class, referred to above as the Extension Fee Damages Class, under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, represented by Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi, related to Claim Five; e. Declaratory and injunctive relief; f. Compensatory damages; g. An award of prevailing party costs, including attorney fees, for Counts One, Four, Five and Six; and h. Such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
29

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 30 of 31

DATED this 21st day of June, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ivy Wang Ivy Wang On Behalf of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
Ivy Wang SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 P: 504-228-7279 F: 504-486-8947 E: ivy.wang@splcenter.org
Micah West* Samuel Brooke* Emily Early* Sara Zampierin* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 P: 334-956-8200 F: 334-956-8481 E: micah.west@splcenter.org E: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org E: emily.early@splcenter.org E: sara.zampierin@splcenter.org
*application for pro hac vice pending
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

30

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 31 of 31

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that arrangements have been made to, on this date, deliver a true and correct copy of the foregoing by hand delivery to the following parties, at the below addresses:

Robert J. Black 302 Louisiana Ave Bogalusa LA, 70427

Bogalusa City Court c/o Tonia DeLeon, Clerk of Court 202 Arkansas Ave Bogalusa, LA, 70427

Formal proof of service will be filed with the Court when completed.

I further certify that arrangements have been made to, on this date, deliver a true and correct courtesy copy of the foregoing to the City Attorney for Bogalusa and the Attorney General at the below addresses:

Jeff Landry, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General P.O Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804

Dale Edgar Branch, Bogalusa City Attorney 1743 Goodyear Dr Bogalusa LA, 70427-4020 debranch@bellsouth.net

DATED this 21st day of June, 2016.

/s/ Ivy Wang Ivy Wang

31

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT, and ROBERT LEVI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOGALUSA CITY COURT and ROBERT J. BLACK, in his individual and official capacities,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Section “B”(5)

JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE AND TO ENFORCE AGREED STIPULATION COME NOW Plaintiffs Ebony Roberts and Rozzie Scott (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Robert J. Black1 to respectfully request that the Court: (i) cancel the July 13, 2016 hearing set for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and suspend the briefing schedule for that motion (see Order, ECF No. 32); (ii) cancel the July 20, 2016 hearing requested by Plaintiffs to hear Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and hold that motion in abeyance (see Motion, Notice, and Request, ECF Nos. 30, 30-3, 31); (iii) agree to enforce this Agreement; and (iv) order Plaintiffs and Defendant Black to submit a joint written status report in 45 days to report on the status of settlement discussions and the parties’ respective positions on how the Court should proceed with the pending motions for preliminary injunction and class certification. As a basis for this Motion, Plaintiffs and Defendant Black state as follows:

1 The instant motion does not involve Defendant Bogalusa City Court. 1

1. This putative class action lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2016. (ECF No. 1). The lawsuit includes challenges to the constitutionality of certain alleged practices / procedures of Defendant Judge Robert J. Black in his role as the Bogalusa City Court Judge and Defendant Bogalusa City Court, and seeks equitable relief as well as damages.
2. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction on June 21, 2016. (Motion, ECF No. 5). The Court denied the request for a TRO and set the request for a preliminary injunction for a hearing on July 13, 2016, and set a briefing schedule. (Order, ECF No. 32).
3. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Class Certification, noticed that motion for submission on July 20, 2016, and requested oral argument. (Motion, Notice, Request, ECF Nos. 30, 30-3, 31).
4. In response to the Complaint, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Black discussed the issues presented by the lawsuit and determined that they would like to explore in detail the possibility of settlement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Defendant Black have agreed to jointly petition the Court to continue the matters identified in the opening paragraph of this Motion in order to facilitate consideration of a settlement without prejudice to either side’s position and without the unnecessary accrual of attorneys’ fees.
5. As used in this filing, the phrase “time period of this Agreement” refers to the time period from June 24, 2016, to seventy-five days after the Court grants this Motion.
6. To permit Plaintiffs and Defendant Black to explore settlement of this matter, Defendant Black hereby stipulates that, during the time period of this Agreement, he will not act to incarcerate any Bogalusa City Court defendant on the sole basis of nonpayment of fines or
2

costs imposed during Bogalusa City Court proceedings, or for nonpayment of or an inability to pay an assessed contempt fee.
7. Defendant Black also stipulates that, during the time period of this Agreement, he will not assess or collect (i) any court cost authorized by La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899; (ii) any “extension fees” or similar payments required by the City Court to allow a defendant additional time to pay court debt; or (iii) any contempt fees that are retained by the City Court and deposited into the City Court’s judicial expense account.
8. Defendant Black also stipulates that, during the time period of this Agreement, he will provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel a copy of jail logs for the Bogalusa City Jail for every day of the time period of this Agreement. A copy of the jail logs will be delivered by facsimile or electronic mail to Plaintiffs’ counsel on a weekly basis by close of business Monday. Defendant Black will also, upon request by Plaintiffs’ counsel, make available court records pertaining to any individual defendant whose name appears on the jail log.
9. Defendant Black also stipulates that, during the time period of this Agreement, he will provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel an up-to-date copy of the Bogalusa City Court’s “Criminal Account-Citizens Income Statement.” A copy will be delivered by facsimile or electronic mail to Plaintiffs’ counsel on a weekly basis.
10. Other than as expressly set out above, Defendant Black retains full rights to enforce the law, to accept plea agreements from City Court defendants, to jail those defendants who are arrested or sentenced on grounds other than the nonpayment of fines or costs, and to otherwise carry on the efficient administration of justice within the City Court. Furthermore, this stipulation is not to be understood to prevent Defendant Black from ordering community service, where appropriate or allowing partial payment; from continuing court dates or appearances to
3

times beyond the time period of this Agreement; or from otherwise presiding over City Court dockets during this or any other time.
11. Finally, Plaintiffs and Defendant Black all agree and hereby stipulate that nothing contained within this Motion is to be construed as an admission of liability on behalf of any Defendant; that the filing of this motion shall not be used against any party; and that no party to this filing shall be held to have waived any argument, position, or defense as a result of the agreements recited herein or as a result of the Court’s order on this Motion.
12. Plaintiffs and Defendant Black stipulate that the Court shall have the authority to enforce the stipulations contained within this document by appropriate order.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, Plaintiffs and Defendant Black respectfully request that the Court enter an order that specifies that it will exercise its jurisdiction to enforce the stipulations contained in paragraphs six to nine, above. Plaintiffs and Defendant Black further request that the Court enter an order that (i) cancels the July 13, 2016 hearing set for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and suspends the briefing schedule for that motion; (ii) cancels the July 20, 2016 hearing requested by Plaintiffs to hear Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and holds that motion in abeyance; (iii) agrees to enforce this Agreement; and (iv) orders Plaintiffs and Defendant Black to submit a joint written status report in 45 days.
A proposed order accompanies this Motion.

DATED this June 27, 2016. FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Samuel Brooke Samuel Brooke On Behalf of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
Ivy Wang (La. Bar No. 35368) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

4

FOR DEFENDANT BLACK:

1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 P: 504-228-7279 F: 504-486-8947 E: ivy.wang@splcenter.org
Micah West* Samuel Brooke* Emily Early* Sara Zampierin* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 P: 334-956-8200 F: 334-956-8481 E: micah.west@splcenter.org E: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org E: emily.early@splcenter.org E: sara.zampierin@splcenter.org
*Admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BY: /s/ E. B. DITTMER II________________ E. B. DITTMER II (04967) 2250 7th Street Mandeville, LA 70471 (985) 624-5010/Fax (985) 624-5306 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT J. BLACK, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date the foregoing document was filed through the Court’s

CM/ECF filing system, and by virtue of this filing notice will be sent electronically to all counsel

of record, including the following:

E. B. DITTMER II (04967) 2250 7th Street Mandeville, LA 70471 (985) 624-5010/Fax (985) 624-5306 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ROBERT J. BLACK, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

I further certify that on this date the foregoing document was served via U.S. Mail to the

following:

Bogalusa City Court c/o Tonia DeLeon, Clerk of Court 202 Arkansas Ave Bogalusa, LA, 70427

I further certify that on this date a courtesy copy of the foregoing document was delivered to the

following, as indicated below:

Jeff Landry, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General P.O Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804

DATED this June 27, 2016.

/s/ Samuel Brooke Samuel Brooke

6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-11024

BOGALUSA CITY COURT, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(5)

ORDER

Considering the “Joint Motion to Continue and to Enforce

Agreed Stipulation” (Rec. Doc. 36) and pursuant to that agreement,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Court hereby

adopts the joint stipulation of the parties.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Certify Class (Rec.

Doc. 30) and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Rec. Doc. 5)

are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to reurge if necessary. The

preliminary injunction hearing presently scheduled for July 13,

2016 is hereby CANCELLED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within forty-five days from the

date of this Order, the parties shall jointly file a motion to set

a scheduling conference in this matter—proposing numerous

potential dates based on the status of settlement negotiations.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines shall remain

unaltered.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of June, 2016.

____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-11024

BOGALUSA CITY COURT, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(5)

ORDER

Considering the “Joint Motion to Continue to Enforce the

Parties’ Stipulations” (Rec. Doc. 47),

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The parties’ joint

stipulations (see Rec. Docs. 36, 39, 46) shall remain in effect

and be fully enforceable by this Court for sixty (60) days from

the date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines shall remain

unaltered.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 44

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ROBERT LEVI, EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT, RICHARD BOLGIANO, BENNY GRAHAM, JAMES LORIO, BRADLEY MOSES, and MARISA PAM, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT J. BLACK, in his individual and official capacities, and BOGALUSA CITY COURT,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Section “B”(5)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
CLASS ACTION

I.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Defendants Judge Robert J. Black (“Black”) and the Bogalusa City Court (“City

Court”) operate a modern-day debtors’ prison, jailing the poor for their failure to pay. Defendant

Black routinely orders individuals to jail for non-payment of monetary penalties for minor traffic

and misdemeanor offenses without inquiring into the reason for non-payment and imposes overly

burdensome alternative sentences under the threat of jail that are impossible for many to satisfy.

2. The City Court is funded off the backs of the poor. It substantially relies on the

court costs and fees it collects from criminal defendants. The City Court routinely covers at least

15% of its expenditures through income it generates from criminal defendants. Without this

money, the City Court could not function. This structural conflict of interest creates an incentive

for Defendant Black to find individuals guilty, to impose the maximum statutory court costs (and

to fail to waive those costs if an individual is unable to pay), and to either jail a person for failing

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 44
to pay without making an inquiry into their ability to pay, or to convert the fines and costs into unreasonable community service requirements without considering the person’s ability to satisfy those requirements within the time allotted.
3. This incentive is exemplified through Defendant Black’s creation of a $50 “extension fee,” and later a $25 community service “enrollment fee,” to raise additional money to operate the City Court. These fees are not authorized by state law.
4. On June 21, 2016, Plaintiffs Rozzie Scott (“Scott”), Ebony Roberts (“Roberts”), Latasha Cook (“Cook”), and Robert Levi (“Levi”) filed a lawsuit against Defendant Black alleging that Defendant Black operates a modern day debtors’ prison and cannot maintain the appearance of impartiality because the City Court substantially relies on court costs and fees to fund its operations. Shortly thereafter, the Parties agreed to several temporary stipulations (the “Agreements”) in which Defendant Black agreed not to jail people for non-payment of fines, costs, or contempt fees, and would not assess or collect any court costs authorized by La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 or extension or contempt fees that are retained by the City Court.
5. Before the Agreements, Defendant Black gave individuals unable to pay their monetary penalties in full a false choice: they could either go to jail for non-payment of fines and costs or pay this illegal $50 extension fee to buy additional time to pay their monetary penalty.
6. Plaintiffs Scott, Roberts, Cook, and Levi were previously victimized by this funding system and were forced to accept the false choice of paying the illegal $50 extension fee to avoid being jailed. Each of these Plaintiffs paid the City Court $50 to purchase their freedom. Hundreds of other people either went to jail or were forced to make this payment.
7. Since the Parties entered into the Agreements, Defendant Black has started ordering defendants who are unable to pay their fines and court costs to perform community
2

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 44
service, under the threat of jail if they fail to satisfy the order. There is only one community service option: picking up trash at the Bogalusa City Jail once per week on Saturday mornings. Those who cannot pay or perform the community service—because of physical or mental disability or because of scheduling conflicts due to work or childcare—are told that the alternative is jail.
8. The Agreements will expire on February 17, 2017, and there is a reasonable expectation Defendant Black will again require individuals to pay illegal fees, jail them for nonpayment without regard to indigency, and incarcerate those who cannot perform the community service. There is no evidence that Defendants will abandon the unconstitutional policies, practices, and procedures they employed before the Agreements.
9. Plaintiffs Richard Bolgiano (“Bolgiano”), Benny Graham (“Graham”), James Lorio (“Lorio”), Bradley Moses (“Moses”), and Marisa Pam (“Pam”) fear they will be incarcerated for non-payment, forced to make an illegal payment, required to perform unreasonable community service under the threat of jail, and deprived of due process by having their cases decided by a biased judge at their upcoming court hearings. Plaintiffs do not have the ability to pay the hundreds of dollars in fines and costs they owe the City Court or the ability to perform the community service that has been or will be imposed under the threat of jail.
10. Defendants’ unconstitutional practices have affected, and will continue to affect, hundreds of low-income people with citations for traffic tickets or misdemeanor violations in the City of Bogalusa, Louisiana. Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to seek a declaration that Defendants’ practices are unconstitutional, to seek an injunction to enjoin them from continuing these practices, and to seek damages to recover the illegal extension fee for those who paid it in the past year.
3

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 4 of 44

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

question jurisdiction).

12. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of

the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

13. Plaintiff Latasha Cook is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

14. Plaintiff Robert Levi is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

15. Plaintiff Ebony Roberts is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

16. Plaintiff Rozzie Scott is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

17. Plaintiff Richard Bolgiano is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

18. Plaintiff Benny Graham is a resident of Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

19. Plaintiff James Lorio is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

20. Plaintiff Robert Moses is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

21. Plaintiff Marisa Pam is a resident of Bogalusa, Louisiana.

B. Defendants

22. Defendant Robert J. Black is the sole judge who sits on the Bogalusa City Court

in Bogalusa, Louisiana. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

23. Defendant Bogalusa City Court is a government entity located in Bogalusa,

Louisiana.

4

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 5 of 44
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Defendant Black Oversees and Administers the Bogalusa City Court. 24. Bogalusa is a town of about 12,000 people located in Washington Parish, Louisiana, approximately 1.5 hours north of New Orleans, Louisiana. The town’s economy centers on the lumber and paper mills. Nearly 36% of the population in Bogalusa lives below the poverty line. The median household income was $25,036 in 2015, less than half of the median household income in the United States. 25. The City Court is authorized to hear cases involving city ordinance violations, including traffic tickets and misdemeanors, which are committed within Ward Four of Washington Parish. Defendant Black is the only judge who sits on the City Court. 26. Defendant Black is elected to his position as judge of the City Court. 27. Defendant Black is authorized to appoint and remove clerks and deputy clerks for the City Court. 28. Defendant Black possesses administrative, executive, and judicial powers over the City Court. In his administrative capacity, Defendant Black is responsible for the orderly administration of the City Court. In his executive capacity, Defendant Black is responsible for the City Court’s finances, including creating a budget for the City Court and ensuring the City Court has sufficient funds to pay employee salaries and the City Court’s overhead expenses. Finally, in his judicial capacity, Defendant Black is responsible for impartially adjudicating municipal and misdemeanor cases before the City Court. 29. Defendant Black is authorized to create policies and rules for the conduct of judicial business before the City Court. This power includes practices with regard to the City Court’s collection of fines and court costs.
5

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 6 of 44
B. The Bogalusa City Court Systematically Jails and Threatens to Jail Individuals Who Cannot Pay Fines and Court Costs that Fund the City Court or Converts Those Fines and Court Costs into Unreasonable Community Service Requirements Ordered Under the Threat of Incarceration.
30. The Bogalusa City Court typically conducts criminal proceedings once per week, on Monday mornings and afternoons.
31. On behalf of the City Court, Defendant Black imposes a suspended jail sentence for individuals who plead guilty or are found guilty after trial and are given a sentence of fines and costs only, with the jail sentence to be activated if the individual fails to pay. See La. C. Cr. P. Art. 884. This suspended jail sentence is commonly referred to as “default time.”
32. Defendant Black does not conduct an indigency determination before imposing default time or inquire into whether an individual has the resources to pay a fine and court costs.
33. Defendant Black also imposes “default time” when ordering individuals to complete community service.
34. If an individual cannot pay the fine and court costs in full on the sentencing date, Defendant Black orders the individual to return to the City Court by the “pay date” or converts the fine and court costs to community service. The pay date functions as the deadline by which Defendant Black expects the individual to pay the fines and court costs in full.
35. The City Court does not accept partial payments, reduce fines and court costs to a civil judgment, or remit any fines for those who are unable to pay. Any individual ordered to pay a fine and court costs must pay the fine and court costs in full or complete the ordered community service.
36. Neither Defendant Black nor anyone acting on behalf of the City Court provides or appoints counsel to persons appearing at pay date proceedings.
6

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 7 of 44
37. Neither Defendant Black nor anyone acting on behalf of the City Court provides notice before the pay date proceedings that the person’s ability to pay will be a critical issue at the hearing if they are unable to pay, or provides the individual during or before the hearing with a form (or its equivalent) designed to elicit information about the individual’s financial circumstances.
1. Practices Before the Parties’ Agreements. 38. Before the Parties’ Agreements, see supra para. 4, Defendant Black did not inquire into the reasons for non-payment if an individual failed to pay the fines and court costs imposed or distinguish between those individuals who willfully refused to pay and those who could not pay due to their indigence. 39. When a person appeared at a pay date and did not have the money to pay the monetary penalty, Defendant Black often allowed some individuals to pay a $50 “extension fee” to purchase their freedom and be permitted additional time to pay their monetary penalty.1 40. Defendant Black instructed those who could not afford the $50 “extension fee” or who were not given that option to sit in seats at the front of the courtroom for the remainder of the court session. 41. A City Court marshal generally allowed individuals to leave the courtroom to make phone calls to family and friends to try to arrange for payment while court remained in session. A marshal escorted out of the courtroom those individuals permitted to make phone calls to arrange for payment. The marshal stood by the individual while he or she attempted to contact family, friends, or co-workers to explain that he or she will be arrested and jailed if the
1 This extension fee is described in greater detail at Paragraphs 89 through 99.
7

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 8 of 44
fines and court costs were not paid by the end of the court session. If family, friends, or coworkers brought money to pay the fines and court costs to the courthouse before the end of the court session, the individual was allowed to pay and to leave.
42. At the end of the court session, the marshal walked those who could not pay down the courthouse steps and to the jail in an adjacent building, and booked them into the City jail. Sometimes the marshal did this by handcuffing persons together.
43. The City Court clerk’s minute entries recorded when a person was sent to jail for non-payment, noting that the person had failed to pay and was ordered to serve time in jail or to remain in jail until a certain amount was paid. To illustrate, in the sample minutes below, Defendant Black ordered an individual to either serve “50 days default time” or pay $575.00 for not having proof of insurance or a license plate:
44. Any individual arrested for non-payment could be released from jail if the fine and court costs were paid in full or if the individual served the default time.
45. The City’s jail logs document the amount of money an individual had to pay or the amount of time the individual had to serve to be released from jail. In the example below, an
8

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 9 of 44 individual was ordered to serve 160 days in jail unless he paid a $724 “cash fine”:
46. If an individual failed to appear at the pay date, Defendant Black issued an attachment for the individual’s arrest and ordered the individual to serve 15 days in jail or to pay a $250 cash bond. In the sample below, Defendant Black sentenced an individual to a pay or stay sentence of “15 days” in jail or a “$250.00 contempt fee”:
47. Defendant Black sometimes announced in open court when issuing such attachments that a person that failed to appear to pay could “buy their way out of jail.”
48. Defendant Black’s announcement that a person can “buy their way out of jail” is reflected in the jail logs. In the example below, an individual paid a fine of $250 to “shorten [her] sentence of 15 days”:
9

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 10 of 44
2. Practices After the Parties’ Agreements. 49. Since the Parties entered into the Agreements, Defendant Black still does not offer payment plans, remit any fines, or sign a civil judgment in the amount of the fines and costs to collect through civil process rather than by using criminal sanctions. Instead, he has started requiring people who lack the money to pay their fines and court costs at the Pay Date to perform community service as an alternative to going to jail for non-payment. 50. A person’s sentence is satisfied and her case is closed if the community service is completed within the allotted timeframe, along with any other conditions of the sentence. 51. Defendant Black, however, offers only one community service option: picking up trash at the Bogalusa Police Department. 52. The amount of community service imposed varies from defendant to defendant and appears to be unrelated to the amount of the initial fine imposed. There is no cap on the number of community service hours imposed. 53. Additionally, a person can only satisfy any community service requirements one day per week on Saturday mornings, generally for a period of four or eight hours. Individuals are not informed about the number of available community service hours in advance of the date that they are performed. 54. Any person ordered to complete community service as an alternative to payment is given a summons to return to the City Court to “Pay Fines and Costs” and to provide “Proof of Completion of Community Service or Contempt Charge.” In the example below, Plaintiff Marisa Pam is required to return to the City Court on February 13, 2017 to show proof of 40 hours of community service or will be subject to a “contempt charge.”
10

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 11 of 44
55. Defendant Black has continued to threaten some individuals verbally that they will go to jail if they do not complete the community service within the allotted timeframe.
56. Defendant Black has also continued to impose fees that are not authorized under state law. For example, he has charged some individuals a $25 community service “enrollment fee” to pick up trash at the Bogalusa Police Department, even though the $25 community service enrollment fee is not authorized under state law.
57. Money collected from the $25 community service enrollment fee is deposited into the City Court’s accounts. The City Court’s income statements reflect that Defendant Black has raised nearly $1,000 by charging defendants unable to pay fines and court costs this new, unauthorized fee:
58. Many City Court defendants cannot perform the community service due to disability, lack of transportation or childcare, or because they work on Saturdays.
59. Moreover, the limited availability of the community service offered means that 11

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 12 of 44
many individuals who cannot afford to pay their fines and costs are in practice unable to access this alternative, even though they are capable of doing the work.
60. Defendant Black tells many people who attempt to explain that they cannot pay the fine or perform the community service that the alternative is jail, and orders each defendant sentenced to community service to appear to show “proof of completion of community service” or face a “contempt charge.”
61. Additionally, Defendant Black has continued to enforce pay or stay sentences on anyone who fails to appear, even though the Parties’ Agreements prohibit him from doing so.
62. If a person returns to the City Court after failing to appear, Defendant Black holds the person in contempt and orders the person to pay $150 or serve 15 days in jail.2
63. Defendant Black instructs those who do not have the $150 to sit in the front of the courtroom for the remainder of the court session and to await their arrest.
64. A City Court marshal sometimes allows individuals to leave the courtroom to make phone calls to family and friends to try to arrange for payment of the $150 while court remains in session. A marshal escorts out of the courtroom those individuals permitted to make phone calls to arrange for payment. The marshal stands by the individual while he or she attempts to contact family, friends, or co-workers to explain that he or she will be arrested and jailed if the $150 contempt fee is not paid by the end of the court session. If family, friends, or co-workers bring money to pay the $150 contempt fee to the courthouse before the end of the court session, the individual is allowed to pay and to leave.
65. If an individual is arrested on a warrant for failure to appear, the police tell the
2 While the stipulations are in place, this fee is $150 instead of $250 because Defendants have agreed not to assess the $100 that is credited to the City Court’s judicial expense fund.
12

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 13 of 44
person that they must either pay $150 or serve 15 days in jail. This amount is independent of the person’s underlying criminal charge. In the example below, the person had to pay $300 for failing to appear on two charges or serve 30 days in jail:
66. The City Court clerk’s minute entries record when a person is sentenced to a pay or stay sentence after being arrested on a failure to appear warrant. To illustrate, in the sample minutes below, an individual was sentenced to pay $150 or serve 15 days in jail:
67. Upon expiration of the Agreements, Defendant Black will no longer be prohibited from requiring individuals to pay the illegal extension fee, jailing defendants for non-payment without regard to indigency, incarcerating individuals who are unable to perform the community service, or creating new fees to fund the City Court that are unauthorized by state law.
C. The Bogalusa City Court Substantially Relies on Court Costs and Fees to Fund its Court Operations.
68. The State of Louisiana does not have a unified funding system for the State’s courts and does not oversee the budgets of city courts. Instead, as the Louisiana Supreme Court reported to the Legislature in 2014, self-generated and local funds—not state funds—represent the largest sources of revenue in the majority of courts. As the Louisiana House of Representatives has noted, city courts are funded through the use of court costs and fees that are
13

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 14 of 44

imposed on those persons appearing before the City Court.

69. The City Court’s operating expenses are paid through four sources of revenue: the

State of Louisiana, the Washington Parish Government, the City of Bogalusa, and the City Court

itself through assessments of certain costs and fees.

70. The funds the City of Bogalusa, Washington Parish, and the State of Louisiana

provide for the City Court, however, are insufficient to cover the City Court’s operating

expenses. The following table illustrates the City Court’s total revenue from the City, Parish,

and State (“Total Governmental Funding”); its total expenditures; its shortfall; and the shortfall

as a percentage of total expenditures, for 2009 to 2015:

Year
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Bogalusa City Court Governmental Revenues and Expenditures

2009-2015

Total Governmental Total

Shortfall Shortfall as % of

Funding

Expenditures

Expenditures

$109,062

$161,310

$52,248

32.4%

$120,509

$176,171

$55,662

31.6%

$210,049

$280,043

$69,994

25%

$212,910

$293,024

$80,114

27.3%

$253,641

$364,000

$110,359 30.3%

$280,357

$386,934

$106,577 27.5%

$282,245

$383,303

$101,058 26.4%

71. The remainder of the City Court’s operating expenses not funded by the

contributions of the State, Parish, and City are funded through court costs and fees collected in

criminal cases; court fees collected in civil cases; and reserves of these same fees collected in

prior years.

72. Defendant Black is authorized under multiple state statutes to assess a variety of

court costs in criminal cases. Although most of these court costs are disbursed to other entities,

Defendant Black is also authorized to assess up to $30 under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 against

every defendant who is found guilty or forfeits his bond. This court cost is different than other

14

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 15 of 44
court costs because Defendant Black is authorized by state statute to keep and spend the money generated under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 to support the City Court’s operations.
73. Defendant Black also retains $100 for the City Court’s operating expenses after finding an individual in contempt and imposing monetary penalties.
74. As the top official of the City Court, Defendant Black, in his administrative and executive capacity, has the sole discretion over how to spend the money generated under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899.
1. Practices Before the Parties’ Agreement. 75. Before the Agreements, in his administrative and executive capacity, Defendant Black established a practice of assessing $30 in some cases under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 and $29.50 in other cases, depending on the charge. He created and authorized a case costs schedule for the City Court that reflected whether to charge $30 or $29.50 based on the charge. 76. When imposing a monetary penalty, Defendant Black specified a specific fine amount and then refers generally to “costs.” The specific amount of costs is later assessed by a court employee based on the schedule. 77. In his administrative and executive capacity, Defendant Black also established a practice of assessing a $250 contempt fine and costs if a person failed to appear and ordered the Clerk of Court to retain $100 of that amount to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses. 78. In his administrative and executive capacities for the City Court, Defendant Black ordered the Clerk of Court to create a “judicial expense” account for the City Court and instructed the clerks to deposit the statutory court costs under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899 into that account. In addition to these costs, the judicial expense account consisted of money collected from extension fees and contempt fees. No other sources funded the City Court’s judicial
15

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 16 of 44
expense account. 79. Costs assessed against City Court criminal defendants comprised a substantial
portion of the City Court’s yearly operating budget. For example, the City Court generated nearly $57,000 for its “judicial expense” account in 2014 through court costs assessed under La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899, extension fees, and contempt fees for non-payment—an amount that represented approximately 15% of the City Court’s operating budget. In 2015, the City Court generated even more court-controlled revenue—at least $64,000 in judicial expense funds from court costs and fees and at least $5,000 in extension fees—an amount that represented about 18% of the City Court’s revenues and expenditures in its proposed operating budget.
80. Defendant Black controlled the judicial expense account in his executive and administrative capacity for the City Court and had sole discretion under state law to determine how those funds were allocated to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses.
81. The manner in which Defendants funded the City Court created a structural conflict of interest between Defendant Black’s duty to impartially adjudicate cases and his executive responsibility to raise money to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses. The City Court could not have operated if Defendant Black did not find, or threaten to find, City Court defendants guilty or in contempt, and if he did not successfully collect court costs and fees from a substantial number of individuals who appeared before him.
2. Practices After the Parties’ Agreement. 82. Since the Parties entered into the Agreements, Defendant Black has not been collecting or assessing any court costs authorized by La. Stat. Ann. § 13:1899, extension fees, or contempt fees that are retained by the City Court. 83. However, neither the local governments nor the State of Louisiana have provided
16

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 17 of 44
the City Court supplemental funding to off-set this loss of money. Instead, the City Court has been funding itself through its reserve funds from its judicial expense account to make up for the loss of income from City Court defendants. As of December 31, 2015, the City Court had $52,262 in cash reserves in its judicial expense account.
84. As noted supra para. 68-71, the City Court averages about a $100,000 budgetary shortfall from local and State funding sources each year.
85. Six months have passed since the Parties entered into their Agreements. Based upon information and belief, and the City Court’s expenditures from previous years, the City Court will have spent about $50,000 of its cash reserves upon the expiration of the stipulations and nearly exhausted its reserves.
86. Neither the State nor local governments have provided sufficient additional funds for 2017 to off-set the loss of monies generated from criminal defendants.
87. The City Court will not have sufficient funds to operate unless it begins to assess judicial expense funds again upon the expiration of the Agreements.
88. The City Court’s funding structure creates a structural conflict of interest between Defendant Black’s duty to impartially adjudicate cases and his executive responsibility to raise money to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses. The City Court will not be able to operate if Defendant Black does not find, or threaten to find, City Court defendants guilty or in contempt for failure to pay, appear, or complete community service,3 and if he does not successfully collect court costs and fees from a substantial number of individuals who appear before him.
3 The conflict of interest will exist even for those defendants who are facing contempt for failure to complete community service. A person held in contempt is typically assessed a $250 fee, $100 of which is deposited into the City Court’s judicial expense fund—or more than three times what the City Court can initially collect from a defendant in judicial expense funds.
17

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 18 of 44
D. The Bogalusa City Court Has Created Illegal Fees to Generate Additional Revenue.
89. Before the Parties’ Agreements, Defendant Black created a $50 “extension fee” on behalf of the City Court in his executive and administrative capacities. The money collected through this extension fee was used to pay for the operations of the City Court.
90. The “extension fee” is not authorized by state law. 91. City courts are not authorized to create new court costs and fees under state law; that authority is limited to the Louisiana State Legislature. 92. Through the creation of this fee, the City Court authorized Defendant Black, acting in his judicial capacity, to offer a false choice to individuals who cannot pay fines and court costs by the pay date: either (a) pay the extension fee by the end of the court session (or in some cases, shortly after booking) and be granted additional time to pay the fines and court costs, or (b) go to jail until all fines and costs are paid or the underlying sentence is served. 93. The $50 “extension fee” is not memorialized in an order because it was not actually ordered by Defendant Black. Rather, it was treated by the City Court as an alternative collection method, to permit the person to pay more in order to have additional time to try to pay the monetary penalty. 94. If a person was not able to pay the illegal $50 extension fee before the end of court, she was processed into the jail. But if she obtained it shortly after being jailed, she may have been permitted to be released, as reflected in the jail records. For example, in the below jail log excerpt, the person was jailed at 2:52pm and was released 19 minutes later, after paying the extension fee:
18

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 19 of 44
95. The money collected as an extension fee was not credited toward an individual’s fines or court costs. Instead, it was treated as a separate and additional fee.
96. In 2015, the City Court collected the extension fee from at least 100 individuals, netting at least $5,000 to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses.
97. Although the Agreements presently prohibit Defendant Black from assessing the extension fee, he will again be able to assess and collect it upon their expiration.
98. Since the Agreements, Defendant Black has also created a $25 community service “enrollment fee” on behalf of the City Court in his executive and administrative capacities. The money collected through this fee is retained by the City Court.
99. Although the $25 community service “enrollment fee” is not authorized by state law, Defendant Black has started charging defendants this fee to pick up trash at the Bogalusa Police Department.
E. Plaintiffs Richard Bolgiano, Benny Graham, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, and Marisa Pam Face Unconstitutional Treatment at Upcoming Court Dates. i. Plaintiff Richard Bolgiano
100. Plaintiff Richard Bolgiano appeared in front of Defendant Black on December 12, 2016, and pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia.
101. Defendant Black ordered Mr. Bolgiano to pay $433 in fines and costs on the possession of marijuana charge before February 13, 2017, and sentenced him to 15 days default time. Defendant Black also ordered him to pay $243 in fines and costs before February 13, 2017, on the possession of drug paraphernalia charge and sentenced him to 15 days default time.
19

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 20 of 44
102. Mr. Bolgiano faces an imminent threat that he will be jailed because he cannot afford to pay the $676 in total fines and costs that he owes the City Court.
103. Mr. Bolgiano’s right to an impartial judge will be violated if he is forced to appear in the City Court on February 13, 2017, and on any subsequent court date. The City Court’s unconstitutional funding structure creates an appearance that Defendant Black cannot impartially adjudicate whether Mr. Bolgiano willfully failed to pay or failed to comply with other court orders because Defendant Black has a financial interest in extorting money from him to pay for the City Court’s continued operation.
ii. Plaintiff Bradley Moses 104. Plaintiff Bradley Moses appeared in front of Defendant Black on October 31, 2016, and pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, running a stop sign, improper lane usage, driving without a license, and contempt for failing to appear at a previous court date. 105. Defendant Black ordered Mr. Moses to pay $150 in fines and costs for failing to appear with 15 days default time; $100 fine plus costs for possession of marijuana with 15 days default time, as well as 1 year of unsupervised probation; 16 hours of community service, with default time of 15 days, for running a stop sign; 8 hours of community service, with default time of 5 days, for improper lane usage; and 16 hours of community service, with default time of 5 days, for driving without a license. He was ordered to pay and to show proof of completion of community service or face contempt on December 12, 2016. 106. Mr. Moses returned to the City Court on December 12, 2016, but did not have the money to pay his outstanding fines and court costs and had not completed his community service. Defendant Black gave him an extension of time to pay and complete his community service until February 13, 2017.
20

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 21 of 44
107. Mr. Moses faces an imminent threat that he will be jailed because he cannot afford to pay the $333 in total fines and costs that he owes the City Court.
108. Mr. Moses’s right to an impartial judge will be violated if he appears in the City Court on February 13, 2017, and any subsequent dates ordered by the City Court. The City Court’s unconstitutional funding structure creates an appearance that Defendant Black cannot impartially adjudicate whether Mr. Moses willfully failed to pay or failed to comply with other court orders because Defendant Black has a financial interest in extorting money from him to pay for the City Court’s continued operation.
iii. Plaintiff Benny Graham 109. Plaintiff Benny Graham appeared in front of Defendant Black on November 14, 2016, and pleaded guilty to resisting arrest. 110. Defendant Black sentenced Mr. Graham to pay a $200 fine, plus court costs, by January 23, 2017, and default time of 30 days, for the resisting arrest charge. He fears he will be forced to serve the default jail time if he does not pay the fine and court costs by that date. 111. Mr. Graham faces an imminent threat that he will be jailed because he cannot afford to pay the $200 in total fines and costs that he owes the City Court. 112. Mr. Graham’s right to an impartial judge will be violated if he appears in the City Court on January 23, 2017, and any subsequent dates ordered by the City Court. The City Court’s unconstitutional funding structure creates an appearance that Defendant Black cannot impartially adjudicate whether Mr. Graham willfully refused to pay or failed to comply with other court orders because Defendant Black has a financial interest in extoring money from him to pay for the City Court’s continued operation.
21

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 22 of 44
iv. Plaintiff James Lorio 113. Plaintiff James Lorio appeared in front of Defendant Black on October 31, 2016, and pleaded guilty to criminal mischief. 114. Defendant Black sentenced Mr. Lorio to a suspended sentence of 6 months in jail with the condition that he complete 1 year of unsupervised probation, pay a $100 fine, pay a $40 public defender fee, complete substance use treatment, and perform 40 hours of community service before December 12, 2016. 115. Defendant Black explained to Mr. Lorio that the community service consists of picking up litter with the Bogalusa Police Department for eight hours on Saturdays. 116. Because Mr. Lorio works on Saturdays, he had to take two days off of work to complete his community service hours. 117. On December 12, 2016, Mr. Lorio returned to the City Court after paying his fine and costs, but had not completed his community service. Mr. Lorio tried to explain to Defendant Black that he works every Saturday, has already taken two days off of work to complete the community service, and cannot complete the remaining hours of community service without losing his job. 118. Defendant Black, however, would not listen to Mr. Lorio and did not offer Mr. Lorio alternative options to fulfill the reminder of his community service sentence. One of the City Court clerks told him he would serve jail time if he did not complete the community service by February 13, 2017. 119. If Judge Black had offered Mr. Lorio other days to complete the community service, he would be able to complete his community service sentence without losing his job and without facing the possibility of jail.
22

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 23 of 44
120. Mr. Lorio will be arraigned on January 9, 2017, and January 23, 2017, for two other traffic tickets for driving with a suspended license. He fears he will be sentenced to additional fines and costs that he will not be able to pay and to additional community service hours, which he will not be able to complete without losing his job or facing jail time.
121. Mr. Lorio faces an imminent threat that he will be jailed because he cannot complete his community service sentence—and won’t be able to complete any future community service sentence—without losing his job, and because he does not have the money to pay his fines and court costs that he owes and will owe the City Court.
122. Mr. Lorio’s right to an impartial judge will be violated if he is forced to appear in the City Court on February 13, 2017, or on any subsequent date. The City Court’s unconstitutional funding structure creates an appearance that Defendant Black cannot impartially adjudicate whether Mr. Lorio willfully failed to pay or to complete the community service because Defendant Black has a financial interest in extorting money from him to pay for the City Court’s continued operation.
v. Plaintiff Marisa Pam 123. Plaintiff Marisa Pam appeared in front of Defendant Black on October 31, 2016, and pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace. 124. Defendant Black sentenced Ms. Pam to 1 year unsupervised probation and 90 days in jail suspended on the condition that she pay a $100 fine plus costs and complete marriage counseling on or before December 12, 2016. 125. Ms. Pam returned to the City Court on December 12, 2016, but did not have the money to pay her fine and costs because of her limited financial means. Although she asked for an extension of time to pay her fine and court costs, Judge Black refused.
23

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 24 of 44
126. Without any inquiry into her ability to perform community service, Defendant Black converted Ms. Pam’s fine and costs to 40 hours of community service and told her that she would have to pick up litter on Saturdays at the jail.
127. Ms. Pam explained to Defendant Black that she could not complete the community service because she suffers from severe chronic pain as a result of a car accident that broke four ligaments in her neck.
128. Defendant Black would not consider any other community service option, told Ms. Pam to “try it out,” and gave her a summons, which threatened to hold her in contempt if she did not complete the community service before February 13, 2017. When she left court, she started crying because she knew that she would not be able to complete Defendant Black’s order of community service due to her neck injuries and chronic pain.
129. Even if she was not disabled, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Ms. Pam to complete the community service within the time period ordered: there are only nine Saturdays between her court dates, including Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve (when no community service was available), and generally the jail only offers community service for four or eight hours each Saturday. Ms. Pam therefore needs at least 10 Saturdays to complete her community service.
130. Ms. Pam faces an imminent threat that she will be jailed because she cannot complete the community service or pay the fine and court costs that she owes the City Court.
131. Ms. Pam’s right to an impartial judge will be violated if she appears in the City Court on February 13, 2017, and any subsequent dates ordered by the City Court. The City Court’s unconstitutional funding structure creates an appearance that Defendant Black cannot impartially adjudicate whether Ms. Pam willfully failed to complete the community service
24

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 25 of 44
because Defendant Black has a financial interest in extorting money from her to pay for the City Court’s continued operation.
F. Plaintiffs Rozzie Scott, Ebony Roberts, Latasha Cook and Robert Levi Paid an Illegal $50 Extension Fee in Their Criminal Cases before a Judge with an Unconstitutional Conflict of Interest. i. Plaintiff Rozzie Scott
132. Plaintiff Rozzie Scott appeared in front of Defendant Black on May 12, 2016, and was found guilty of stealing $5 worth of food from a local store to feed his family.
133. Defendant Black ordered Mr. Scott to pay a $450 fine plus costs on or before June 13, 2016.
134. Mr. Scott returned to the City Court on June 13, 2016, but did not have the money to pay his fine and court costs. After telling Defendant Black that he could not pay, Defendant Black asked him if he had $50 for an extension of time to pay the fine and costs.
135. After Mr. Scott told Defendant Black that he did not have $50, Defendant Black told Mr. Scott to sit in a chair on the side of the courtroom and wait for his arrest. Defendant Black never asked him why he did not have the money or whether he was working.
136. While Mr. Scott waited, Defendant Black told other defendants that they would go to jail if they could not pay the extension fee or their fines plus costs.
137. At the end of court, Mr. Scott was arrested and booked into the City jail, where he spent about four hours until his cousin paid the $50 extension fee for his release.
ii. Plaintiff Ebony Roberts 138. Plaintiff Ebony Roberts appeared in front of Defendant Black on March 21, 2016, and pleaded guilty to speeding and driving without a license.
25

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 26 of 44
139. Defendant Black sentenced Ms. Roberts to pay a fine amount, plus costs on or before April 25, 2016, for speeding and for driving without a license. She later learned it was a total of about $367.50 in fines and court costs for the speeding ticket and $262.50 in fines and court costs for the ticket for driving without a license.
140. Ms. Roberts returned to the City Court on April 25, 2016, but did not have the money to pay her fines and court costs. Defendant Black did not ask Ms. Roberts whether she was working or why she could not pay. He did not offer her a payment plan or community service. He told Ms. Roberts she had to pay the fines and costs or she would go to jail for not paying her traffic tickets.
141. After Ms. Roberts paid the $50, she was ordered to return to the City Court on June 13, 2016, to pay the fines and court costs on her two traffic tickets.
142. Ms. Roberts returned to the City Court on June 13, 2016, and paid $262.50 on her ticket for driving without a license after borrowing the money from her family. However, she did not have the money to pay her fine or court costs on the speeding ticket. Defendant Black did not give Ms. Roberts an opportunity to tell him that she did not have any money and was just trying to do her best to take care of her two-year-old daughter.
143. Before Ms. Roberts could say anything, Defendant Black told her “this was [her] last extension.” A court employee then escorted her out of the courtroom to pay an additional $50. There were so many people standing in line to pay the extension fee that there were even a couple of people that could not fit in the courthouse and had to stand outside.
144. After Ms. Roberts told a court employee that she could not pay $50, he told Ms. Roberts that she could not leave the City Court and would go to jail if she did not pay the money.
26

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 27 of 44
He ordered Ms. Roberts to go back into the courtroom where several other people were also facing arrest for non-payment.
145. Ms. Roberts’s boyfriend left the City Court to get $50 as fast as he could to purchase Ms. Roberts’s freedom.
iii. Plaintiff Latasha Cook 146. Plaintiff Cook appeared in front of Defendant Black on June 1, 2015 and pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace. 147. Defendant Black sentenced Ms. Cook to a suspended sentence of 90 days in jail with the condition that she pay a $300 fine plus court costs and complete substance abuse treatment. 148. Ms. Cook returned to the City Court on July 13, 2015, but did not have the money to pay the fine and court costs because she was unemployed and her only source of income at the time was the disability check she received each month. 149. Defendant Black did not ask Ms. Cook why she did not have the money to pay her fine and court costs. Instead, Ms. Cook paid the City Court the $50 extension fee to receive additional time to pay the fine and court costs. 150. Ms. Cook has previously gone to jail because she did not have the money to pay her fine and court costs. Judge Black asked Ms. Cook on that date whether she had $50 to pay for a new court date. Because she did not have $50 in her pocket, a marshal handcuffed Ms. Cook and booked her into the City jail.
iv. Plaintiff Robert Levi 151. Plaintiff Levi appeared in front of Defendant Black in November 2015 and pleaded guilty to running a stop sign and driving with expired insurance.
27

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 28 of 44

152. Defendant Black sentenced Mr. Levi to pay a $100 fine plus court costs and 30

days default time for driving with expired insurance and a $50 fine plus court costs and 15 days

default time for running a stop sign.

153. Mr. Levi returned to the City Court in January 2016, but did not have the money

to pay his fine and court costs. Judge Black did not ask him why he did not have the money at

his January 2016 court date. Instead, Mr. Levi observed two people arrested for not paying fines

and court costs. Mr. Levi was scared that he would go to jail, too, because he did not have the

money to pay his traffic tickets.

154. Mr. Levi overheard a city court employee tell a woman that she could pay an

additional $50 for an extension of time to pay instead of going to jail.

155. Mr. Levi agreed to pay $50 in addition to his fine and court costs because he

realized he would go to jail if he did not pay it. He had planned to use that money to pay for

other bills that day, which he was late paying after giving the money to the City Court.

156. Mr. Levi returned to the City Court in March 2016 to pay his fine and court costs,

but was $40 short of the amount he owed. He asked a city court employee outside of the

courtroom whether he could make a partial payment. The city court employee told him that

Judge Black “does not take partial payments” and that he “better call somebody!” because Judge

Black is “gonna lock you up!” if he did not come up with the remaining $40.

157. Mr. Levi borrowed the outstanding $40 from a friend and paid his traffic tickets in

full to avoid going to jail.

V.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

158. Plaintiffs seek to certify a Class and Subclass for equitable relief, and a separate

Class for damages.

28

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 29 of 44
159. Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam seek class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), related to Claim One only. This class is defined as: All individuals who will appear in the Bogalusa City Court for criminal cases or who have unpaid fines and costs assessed by and owed to the City Court. This class is referred to as the “Structural Bias Equitable Class.”
160. Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam seek certification of a Subclass pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), related to Claims Two, Three, Four and Six only. This subclass is defined as: All individuals who were or will be adjudicated guilty in the Bogalusa City Court, who have been or will be given a future date by which to return to City Court, and who have not paid the assessed fines and costs in full or have not completed the assessed community service prior to returning to City Court. This Subclass is referred to as the “Pay Date Equitable Subclass.” All members of the Pay Date Equitable Subclass are also members of the Structural Bias Equitable Class.
161. Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi seek class certification pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), related to Claim Five only. This class is defined as: Any individual that paid an extension fee between June 22, 2015 and the present. This class is referred to as the “Extension Fee Damages Class.”
162. Rule 23(a)(1), Impracticability of Joinder: The precise size of the classes and subclass are unknown by Plaintiffs but is substantial. The Structural Bias Equitable Class is forward-looking and consists of persons appearing in approximately 3,000 criminal traffic and misdemeanor cases filed in the Bogalusa City Court per year. The Pay Date Equitable Subclass is forward-looking and consists of persons who may be subjected to paying an illegal extension fee or being put in jail for non-payment or failure to complete community service; in the past
29

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 30 of 44
year this occurred to more than 40 persons. The Extension Fee Damages Class consists of persons who paid the extension fee in the last year, which occurred at least 100 times. Many of the class members and most of the subclass members are low-income individuals who will likely lack independent resources to bring an independent action or to be joined in this action. Joinder of every member of the class and the subclass would be impracticable.
163. Rule 23(a)(2), Commonality: Plaintiffs raise claims based on questions of law and fact that are common to, and typical of, the putative class members they seek to represent.
a. Questions of law and fact common to the Structural Bias Equitable Class include:
i. Whether the City Court has a policy of assessing either $30 or $29.50 in court costs according to a fee schedule;
ii. Whether court costs are imposed when individuals in the City Court are adjudicated guilty but not when they are adjudicated not guilty;
iii. Whether Defendant Black conducts an inquiry into ability to pay before sentencing an individual to, or activating an individuals’, default time for non-payment;
iv. Whether Defendant Black conducts an inquiry into ability to pay before ordering an individual to jail for non-payment of fines and court costs;
v. Whether judicial expense funds are used to pay for the City Court’s operating and other expenses;
vi. What percentage of the City Court’s total budget is derived from judicial expense funds;
vii. Whether Defendant Black has control over the allocation of judicial expense funds in his executive capacity for the City Court;
30

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 31 of 44
viii. Whether court costs, extension fees, community service enrollment fees, and contempt fees are deposited into the judicial expense account;
ix. Whether the City Court created a $50 “extension fee” and $25 community service “enrollment fee;”
x. Whether the City Court permitted Defendant Black to offer to some defendants the option of paying a $50 extension fee to buy their freedom and additional time to pay their monetary penalties;
xi. Whether Defendant Black has a policy or practice of sentencing an individual to serve 15 days in jail or to pay a $250 contempt fee if the individual fails to appear to pay her fines and court costs;
xii. Whether the City Court’s funding structure creates a structural conflict of interest that violates due process; and
xiii. Whether injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate and if so, what the terms of such relief should be.
b. Questions of law and fact common to the Pay Date Equitable Subclass include:
i. Whether Defendant Black appoints counsel at pay date proceedings or provides alternative safeguards;
ii. Whether Defendant Black assesses a person’s ability to pay prior to their jailing for non-payment;
iii. Whether Defendant Black assesses alternatives to incarceration under the threat of incarceration before jailing persons for non-payment who were unable to pay;
iv. Whether the alternatives to incarceration for those who are unable
31

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 32 of 44
to pay are reasonable and proportional to a monetary penalty for those who are able to pay; v. Whether the City Court has a policy or practice of authorizing
Defendant Black to offer to some defendants the option of paying a $50 extension fee to buy their freedom and additional time to pay their monetary penalties;
vi. Whether the City Court has a policy or practice of authorizing Defendant Black to require some defendants to pay a $25 community service “enrollment fee” in order to complete court-ordered community service and avoid being found in contempt of court;
vii. Whether Defendant Black assesses a person’s ability to pay prior to offering a $50 extension fee to some people during pay dates;
viii. Whether it is lawful for Defendant Black to order individuals to jail for non-payment of fines and court costs without inquiring into, and making factual findings about, an individual’s ability to pay;
ix. Whether it is lawful for Defendant Black to threaten incarceration but to permit individuals to pay a $50 extension fee to stay out of jail;
x. Whether it is lawful for Defendant Black to require payment of a $25 community service “enrollment fee” in order to complete court-ordered community service and avoid being found in contempt of court;
xi. Whether it is lawful for Defendant Black to order individuals to jail for non-payment of fines and court costs without providing counsel at the time of jailing, and without providing any sort of notice regarding the purpose of the pay date hearing in advance of said hearing or other procedural safeguards; and
xii. Whether injunctive and declaratory relief is appropriate and if so, what the terms of such relief should be.
32

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 33 of 44
c. Questions of law and fact common to the Extension Fee Damages Class include:
i. Whether court costs, extension fees, and contempt fees are deposited into the judicial expense account;
ii. Whether the City Court created a $50 “extension fee;” iii. Whether the City Court permits Defendant Black to offer to some individuals the option of paying a $50 extension fee to buy their freedom and additional time to pay their monetary penalties; iv. Whether any state law authorizes the City Court to charge individuals an extension fee in order to receive additional time to pay fines and court costs; v. Whether due process permits offering a choice between paying an unauthorized extension fee or going to jail for non-payment; and vi. Whether damages are appropriate and if so, what the terms of such relief should be. 164. Rule 23(a)(3), Typicality: The claims of Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, Pam, Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi are typical of those asserted on behalf of the proposed classes and subclass. The injuries of Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, Pam, Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi all arise out of Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs. 165. Rule 23(a)(4), Adequacy: Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, Pam, Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed classes and subclass. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center, who have experience in class-action litigation involving civil rights law, as well as experience litigating policies and practices in municipal courts that are unconstitutional. Counsel
33

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 34 of 44
has the resources, expertise and experience to prosecute this action. Counsel knows of no conflict among members of the proposed class.
166. Rule 23(b)(2): Defendant Black has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Structural Bias Equitable Class and Pay Date Equitable Subclass, making declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class and subclass as a whole appropriate and necessary.
167. Rule 23(b)(3): The common questions of fact and law predominate over the questions of law and fact affecting individual members of the Extension Fee Damages Class, and a class action is a superior method to adjudicate these claims, making it appropriate to decide the damages claims through the class mechanism. Particularly, the factual and legal questions surrounding the general policies and practices of the City Court apply equally to all members of the Damages Class. Furthermore, class members have little ability to pursue these claims individually, and it would be in the interest of judicial economy to adjudicate the constitutionality of the City Court’s policies and practices in one proceeding.
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Structural Conflict of Interest – Due Process) Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, and the Structural Bias Equitable Class
versus Defendant Black in His Individual and Official Capacities 168. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 169. The Due Process Clause requires Defendant Black to impartially adjudicate cases as well as maintain the appearance of impartiality. 170. Defendant Black exercises judicial functions when presiding over cases in the City Court and executive functions over the City Court’s finances and collection practices.
34

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 35 of 44
171. Defendant Black, in his administrative and executive role, has the duty to create a budget and to raise money to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses, and he has the ultimate discretion and control over spending court costs, extension fees, and contempt fees deposited into the judicial expense account.
172. Defendant Black, in his executive and administrative role, and as the final policymaker for the City Court, established a policy, practice, or custom of creating a budget that relies on judicial expense funds to make up a substantial part of the City Court’s budget. This policy, practice, or custom is the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
173. The manner in which the City Court is funded creates a structural conflict of interest between Defendant Black’s duty to impartially adjudicate cases and his executive responsibility to raise money to pay for the City Court’s operating expenses, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
174. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future, and will appear before a judge with a structural conflict of interest.
175. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, on behalf of themselves and the Structural Bias Equitable Class, seek a declaration and injunction against Defendant Black in his individual and official capacities to prevent future injury resulting from the conflict of interest created by Defendant Black acting under color of law in his individual and official capacities.
35

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 36 of 44
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Bearden Violation — Due Process and Equal Protection) Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass
versus Defendant Black in His Individual and Official Capacities 176. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 177. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses prohibit incarcerating individuals for non-payment without first determining that they willfully refused to make a monetary payment. 178. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future and will likely be unable to pay their monetary penalties. Pursuant to his practice, Defendant Black will likely fail to make an inquiry into Plaintiffs’ ability to pay or complete community service before sentencing them to jail for non-payment or failure to complete community service. 179. Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, as well as those similarly situated, will be subject to confinement and other imminent injury in the future if Defendant Black’s policies, practices, and customs are not declared to be unconstitutional. 180. Declaratory relief is likely unavailable because Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam are required to appear in the City Court in January and February, 2017, and likely again after the Agreement expires. There will likely not be sufficient time before their hearings for this Court to reach a final determination on Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim. As such, Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, as well as those similarly situated, may alternatively seek a preliminary injunction to protect them from the
36

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 37 of 44
injuries that will be caused by Defendant Black’s unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs.
181. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, on behalf of themselves and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass, seek a declaration, or if unavailable, a preliminary injunction, to prevent future injury caused by Defendant Black acting under color of state law in his individual and official capacities.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(Right to Counsel – Due Process) Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass
versus Defendant Black in His Individual and Official Capacities 182. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 183. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future, and will likely be unable to pay their monetary penalties or complete community service. Pursuant to his practice, Defendant Black will likely fail to appoint counsel or provide alternative safeguards before requiring them to pay illegal fees or ordering them to jail for non-payment or failure to complete community service. Defendant Black also will not provide notice to Plaintiffs that their ability to pay or perform the community service will be a critical issue in these proceedings. 184. The practices described in the previous paragraph constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 185. Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, as well as those similarly
37

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 38 of 44
situated, will be subject to payment of an illegal fee, confinement, and other imminent injury in the future if Defendant Black’s policies, practices, and customs are not declared to be unconstitutional.
186. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, on behalf of themselves and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass, seek a declaration to prevent future injury caused by Defendant Black acting under color of state law in his individual and official capacities.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(Substantive Due Process) Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses, and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass
versus Defendant Black in His Individual and Official Capacities 187. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 188. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from depriving someone of liberty or property in an arbitrary or capricious manner. 189. Defendant Black, in his executive and administrative role, and as the final policymaker for the City Court, established a policy, practice, or custom of creating an “extension fee” that persons could pay in order to avoid going to jail. This policy, practice, or custom is the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 190. Defendant Black’s policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions risk conditioning Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses’s liberty on paying an illegal extension fee to the City Court’s judicial expense account. 191. Conditioning an individual’s liberty on the payment of the extension fee is arbitrary and capricious because there is no statutory or other authority for the extension fee, in
38

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 39 of 44
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 192. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano,
and Moses and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future, and will likely be unable to pay their monetary penalties. Pursuant to his practice, Defendant Black will likely order Plaintiffs to jail for non-payment if they fail to pay the $50 extension fee.
193. Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses, and those similarly situated, will be subject to confinement and imminent injury if Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs are not declared to be unconstitutional.
194. Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses, on behalf of themselves and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass bring this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken by Defendant Black under color of state law and seek a declaration against Defendant Black in his individual and official capacities to prevent future injury.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(Extension Fee — Procedural Due Process) Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, Levi, and the Extension Fee Damages Class versus
Defendants Bogalusa City Court and Defendant Black in his Official Capacity 195. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 196. Defendant Black, in his executive and administrative role, and as the final policymaker for the City Court, established a policy, practice, or custom of creating an “extension fee” that persons could pay in order to avoid going to jail. This policy, practice, or custom is the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 197. Defendant Black, in his judicial capacity, utilizes this policy, practice, or custom
39

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 40 of 44
to deprive individuals of their property in a manner not authorized by state law by having them pay a $50 extension fee to Defendant City Court to avoid going to jail for non-payment of their monetary penalties.
198. Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi and the proposed Extension Fee Damages Class have paid the extension fee to the City Court.
199. Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi and the proposed Extension Fee Damages Class have a property interest in the extension fee they paid to the City Court.
200. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their property in a manner not authorized by state law by having them pay a $50 extension fee to avoid going to jail for non-payment of their monetary penalties.
201. Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi, on behalf of themselves and the Extension Fee Damages Class, bring this claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken by Defendant Black under color of state law and seek an award of damages for their injuries from Defendant Bogalusa City Court and Defendant Black, sued in his official capacity, by charging Plaintiffs the illegal extension fee.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Unauthorized Fees— Procedural Due Process) Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses, and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass
versus Defendant Black in his Individual and Official Capacities 202. Plaintiffs re–allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 203. Defendant Black, in his executive and administrative role, and as the final policymaker for the City Court, established a policy, practice, or custom of creating an “extension fee” that persons could pay in order to avoid going to jail, and later a $25 fee to
40

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 41 of 44
participate in community service. This policy, practice, or custom is the moving force behind the violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
204. Defendant Black, in his judicial capacity, utilizes this policy, practice, or custom to deprive individuals of their property in a manner not authorized by state law.
205. There is an on-going controversy between Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses, and members of the Pay Date Equitable Subclass and Defendant Black. Plaintiffs are scheduled to appear in the City Court in the future and will likely be unable to pay their monetary penalties. The City Court has repeatedly used illegal fees in the past, and is going to need to raise increased revenue in the near future.
206. Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses have a property interest in the illegal fees they will be asked to pay pursuant to the Bogalusa City Court policy.
207. Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses, as well as those similarly situated, will be subject to payment of an illegal fee in the future if Defendant’s policies, practices, and customs are not declared to be unconstitutional.
208. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses, on behalf of themselves and the Pay Date Equitable Subclass, seek a declaration and an injunction, to prevent future injury caused by Defendant Black acting under color of state law in his individual and official capacities.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief:
a. Assume jurisdiction over this action; b. Certification of a class, referred to above as the Structural Bias Equitable Class, under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, represented by Plaintiffs
41

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 42 of 44

Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, related to Claim One;

c. Certification of a subclass, referred to above as the Pay Date Equitable Subclass,

under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, represented by Plaintiffs

Lorio, Graham, Bolgiano, Moses, and Pam, related to Claims Two and Three, and Lorio,

Graham, Bolgiano, and Moses, related to Claims Four and Six;

d. Certification of a class, referred to above as the Extension Fee Damages Class,

under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, represented by Plaintiffs

Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi, related to Claim Five;

e. Declaratory and injunctive relief;

f. Compensatory damages;

g. An award of prevailing party costs, including attorney fees, for Counts One, Four,

Five and Six; and

h. Such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2017.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ivy Wang Ivy Wang On Behalf of Plaintiffs’ Counsel

Ivy Wang SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 P: 504-228-7279 F: 504-486-8947 E: ivy.wang@splcenter.org

Sara Zampierin* (Trial Attorney) Samuel Brooke* Micah West* Emily Early* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue

42

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 43 of 44 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 P: 334-956-8200 F: 334-956-8481 E: sara.zampierin@splcenter.org E: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org E: micah.west@splcenter.org E: emily.early@splcenter.org *Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Plaintiffs
43

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 67 Filed 01/17/17 Page 44 of 44

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date the foregoing document was filed through the Court’s

CM/ECF filing system, and by virtue of this filing notice will be sent electronically to all counsel

of record, including the following:

E.B. “Ted” Dittmer, II TALLEY, ANTHONY, HUGHES & KNIGHT, LLC Counsel for Defendants Robert Black and Bogalusa City Court

Shannon B. Dirmann Patricia Wilton David Sanders LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Counsel for Defendants Robert Black and Bogalusa City Court

DATED this January 10, 2017.

/s/ Ivy Wang Ivy Wang

44

 
 Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ROBERT LEVI, EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT, RICHARD BOLGIANO, BENNY GRAHAM, JAMES LORIO, BRADLEY MOSES, and MARISA PAM, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Section "B"(5)

ROBERT J. BLACK, in his individual and official capacities, and BOGALUSA CITY COURT,

Defendants.

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF This Stipulated Settlement Agreement related to the Fifth Claim for Relief of the First Amended Complaint (hereinafter the "Agreement") is made by and among the Bogalusa City Court (the "City Court") and Judge Robert J. Black ("Black") ("Defendants"); and Latasha Cook ("Cook"), Ebony Roberts ("Roberts"), Rozzie Scott ("Scott"), and Robert Levi ("Levi") (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs") on behalf of themselves and each of their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. Defendants and Plaintiffs are from time to time referred to hereinafter individually as the "Parties." WHEREAS, Plaintiffs allege that the City Court substantially relied on court costs and fees imposed on criminal defendants to fund the operations of the City Court; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Roberts, Scott, Cook, and Levi allege they paid a $50 "extension fee" to the City Court when they could not pay their fines in full;

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 2 of 20
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on June 21, 2016, and an Amended Complaint on January 17, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, commencing a proposed class action lawsuit entitled, Cook, et al, v. Bogalusa City Court, et al., Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-11024 (the "Lawsuit") against Defendants, and the Fifth Claim for Relief of the First Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages for payment of the extension fee;
WHEREAS, Defendants expressly deny any liability, fault, wrongdoing, or responsibility for any of the claims in the Lawsuit;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Parties to resolve the Fifth Claim for Relief of the First Amended Complaint;
I
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs agree to dismiss the Fifth Claim for Relief against Defendants and to dismiss Defendant Bogalusa City Court from the Lawsuit, according to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the dismissal of the Fifth Claim for Relief will become effective only upon the Court's entering an Order that retains jurisdiction over the Fifth Claim for 180 days in order to enforce the terms of this Agreement (hereinafter the "Retention of Jurisdiction Order");
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration passing between the Parties, and intending to be legally bound hereby, it is agreed: A. DAMAGES
1. In full and complete satisfaction, compromise, and settlement of Plaintiffs' claims for damages, and without admitting any liability or fault or wrongdoing, Defendants agree to
2

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 3 of 20
offer to reimburse any person that paid the $50 "extension fee" 1 after June 21, 20 I5, for each time the person paid the $50 extension fee. The City Court agrees to establish a procedure to notify defendants who have paid the $50 extension fee after June 21, 2015 (hereinafter the "qualifying individuals") of their right to submit a claim to recover these funds, as follows:
a. Within 14 days of execution of this the Settlement Agreement, the City Court will provide Plaintiffs with a listing of all qualifying individuals, including their name, address, and date the $50 extension fee was paid.
b. Within 7 days after the City Court's production of these records, the Parties will confer by telephone to discuss the City Court's process to create the listing described above in subparagraph (a) and to agree on the official list of qualifying individuals. During this conference, Plaintiffs will be allowed to ask any questions about the process used to create the listing. The individual who located and retrieved the records on behalf of the City Court must attend the Parties' telephone conference and be able to answer questions related to the process of creating the listing.
c. As promptly as practicable but no later than 21 days after the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana enters the Retention of Jurisdiction Order, the City Court will mail to all qualifying individuals at their last known address, by first-class mail, a written letter informing them of their right to the $50, instructions to claim the $50, and the deadline for doing so. The letter will be materially identical to that attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A,
1 The "extension fee" was a $50 fee paid by defendants to extend the due date of payment of fines and court costs.
3

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 4 of 20
and will include a Claim Form that is materially identical to that attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B. d. Within a day of mailing letters described in subparagraph (c), the City Court will post in a conspicuous area of the City Court, including on the front door of the City Court cou11house and at the window of the City Court clerk's office, and on the City Court's website, a written notice notifying qualifying individuals of their right to the $50, instructions to claim the $50, and the deadline for doing so. The notice will be materially identical to that attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C. The notice will remain posted throughout the "claim period" defined below in paragraph (f). e. Within 2 days of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana entering the Retention of Jurisdiction Order, the City Court will issue a press release to WBOX radio station and Bogalusa Daily News. The press release will announce the terms of the settlement agreement, and will be materially identical to that attached to this Agreement as Exhibit D. f. Within 2 days after notices are mailed pursuant to subparagraph (c), the City Court will mail to Plaintiffs' counsel a certification that it mailed the written notices to all qualifying individuals; posted the public notice in a conspicuous area of the City Court courthouse and on its website; and issued the press release described in subparagraph (e); g. All qualifying individuals will have 90 days from the date written letters are mailed pursuant to subparagraph (c) above (hereinafter the "claim period") to claim the $50 reimbursement(s).
4

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 5 of 20
h. No later than 5 days after the claim period ends, the City Court will provide the $50 to all qualifying individuals: (I) by mail to those who mail a signed claim form2 to the City Court by the designated deadline, or (2) by mail or in person to those who appear at the City Court Clerk's Office by the designated deadline to sign the claim form and claim the $50. The $50 must be paid to the qualifying individual as a check made payable to the specified qualifying individual, and Defendants will ensure that the checks may be cashed at no charge at the Citizens Savings Bank located at 1725 Sullivan Dr., Bogalusa, Louisiana 70427.
1. The Clerk's office will keep a record of everyone who files a claim for, and receives, reimbursement of the $50 extension fee, including the completed claim forms, as well as those who submit a claim but do not receive reimbursement. Defendants will produce to Plaintiffs a record of who has submitted a claim form and who has received reimbursement, as well as those who submitted a claim form and did not receive reimbursement, at three separate occasions: (i) 30 days after the claim period commences, (ii) 60 days after the claim period commences, and (iii) 7 days after the claim period closes. To satisfy this requirement, Defendants may produce the actual claim forms and documents showing payment. They may alternatively produce a summary document listing the name and address of the person, the date the claim form was received, the date payment was made, and the amount of the payment.
2. Each Party shall be responsible for his or its own attorneys' fees and expenses m connection with the Fifth Claim for Relief.
2 Attached as Form B.
5

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 6 of 20
B. DISMISSAL OF FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 3. The Parties shall file with the Court within 2 days of the execution of this Agreement a Joint Motion to Retain Limited Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii), as agreed upon by the Parties and attached hereto as Exhibit E.
C. MUTUAL RELEASE 4. By Plaintiffs: Except for any violations that arise from a breach of this Agreement, Plaintiffs, on their behalves and on behalf their successors, heirs, and assigns, hereby releases, remises, and forever discharges Defendants from all claims, suits, actions, charges, demands, judgments, costs and executions present and future, known or unknown, both legal and equitable in any manner arising out of the Fifth Claim for Relief ofthe Lawsuit. 5. By Defendants: Except for any violations that arise from a breach of this Agreement, Judge Black, on his behalf and on behalf his successors, heirs, and assigns, and the City Court, on its behalf and on behalf its subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates and agents, releases, remises, and forever discharges Plaintiffs from all claims, suits, actions, charges, demands, judgments, costs and executions present and future, known or unknown, both legal and equitable in any manner arising out of the Fifth Claim for Relief of the Lawsuit.
D. MISCELLANEOUS 6. This Agreement will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of the signatories hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 7. No amendments of this Agreement will be valid unless made in writing and signed by all of the signatories hereto.
6

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 7 of 20
8. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto were on the same instrument. Each signatory to the Agreement may execute this agreement by facsimile or email of a scanned copy of the signature page, which shall have the same force and effect as if executed on an original copy.
9. The Parties further agree to cooperate fully and to execute any and all supplementary documents and to take all additional actions that may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the basic terms and intent of this Agreement.
10. The Parties represent and warrant that they are not relying on the advice of any other Party, or anyone associated with them, as to legal, tax (income, estate, gift, or otherwise), or other consequences of any kind arising out of this Agreement; that they have not relied on any representations or statements, written or oral, of any other Party, except insofar as those representations or statements are set forth in this Agreement; and that they are knowingly and voluntarily signing this Agreement and are not subject to duress, coercion, or undue influence by any other Party or by anyone else.
11. The Parties understand that they have the right to obtain legal counsel to review and evaluate this Agreement, and attest that they have done so or else have agreed to waive this right.
12. If, after the date hereof, any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
13. It is the intent of the signatories that no part of this Agreement is to be presumptively construed either against or in favor of any signatory because of the identity of the drafter.
7

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 8 of 20

14. Paragraph headings contained herein are for purposes of organization only and do not

constitute a part of this Agreement.

15. Any communications or notices to be provided to legal counsel for the Parties pursuant to

this Agreement will be sent in writing via email or addressed, via commercial overnight

delivery service, to the attention of the persons identified below (or as the signatories

may subsequently direct in writing):

Plaintiffs' Counsel:

Samuel Brooke

ATIN: Cook v. Bogalusa

Southern Poverty Law Center

400 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36104

Telephone: (334) 956-8200

Fax:

(334) 956-8481

Email:

samuel.brooke@splcenter.org

Defendants' Counsel:

E.B. Dittmer, II, Esq.

Talley Anthony Hughes & Knight, L.L.C.

2250 7th Street

Mandeville, LA 70471

Telephone: (985) 624-5010

Fax:

(985)624-5306

Email:

ted .d ittmer@talleyanthony.com

16. This Agreement, including the referenced attachments and exhibits to the Agreement,

constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between and among the signatories

with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other prior or

contemporaneous oral agreements, understandings, undertakings and negotiations of the

Parties.

SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS

8

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 9 of 20

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused thi_s Agreement to be executed by their own signature or by their duly authorized representatives.

EBONY ROBERTS

ROBERT J. BLACK

Date MvtY Z- Z,,. 12! 17

ROZZIE SCOTT

\~~

~<>~~\l ~cctt

Date ~~1 :,\ 1 ~0 \7

LATASHA COOK
-Lo/ vJ ~ c.oetl / Date ~)'L'-z. I']

Date - - -- - - -
BOGALUSA CITY COURT by_~~---~
Date- - - - - - -

ROBE~
/(Jk11
/1 Date (}-I);/~5I/
SAMUEL BROOKE, counsel for Plaintiffs
~~

TED DITT"MER, counsel for Defendants
Date - - - -- --

9

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 10 of 20

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their own signature or by their duly authorized representatives.

EBONY ROBERTS

ROBERT J. BLACK

ROZZIE SCOTT LATASHA COOK

Date {V1 A '1 .2..3 ~I y )
BOGALUSA CITY COURT
by YI v ~----
l?•kx..Ar+ .J . 'Bl 4LJK
Date t=1 ,..'1 13J 9-'0 11-

ROBERT LEVI

SAMUEL BROOKE, counsel for Plaintiffs

9

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 11 of 20

Exhibit A

[Date], 20 I7
[qualifying individual] [address 1] [address 2)
Re: Return of $50 extension fee

Dear [qualifying individual]:

The Bogalusa City Court has agreed to provide a refund to any defendant that paid a $50 "extension fee" after June 21, 2015. The Court charged the $50 "extension fee" to defendants who needed more time to pay off fines and court costs owed to the City Court.

If you paid the City Court a $50 extension fee after June 21, 2015, you may be eligible for a refund of the $50 fee.

If you want to claim your refund, you must complete the attached form and either mail it or bring it in person to the Clerk of the City Court within 90 days of the date of the Notice.

If you sign the form and return it by the deadline, and the City Court confirms you paid the extension fee after June 21, 2015, the City Court Clerk will return the $50 extension fee to you, in the form of a check made payable to you. You may cash the check without fees by going to the City Court's bank: Citizens Savings Bank, 1725 Sullivan Dr., Bogalusa, Louisiana 70427.

Ask the Clerk of the City Court if you have any questions about whether you are eligible or about how to claim your refund:

In Person: Bogalusa City Court Clerk's Office 202 Arkansas Ave Bogalusa, Louisiana 70427

By Mail: Bogalusa City Court Clerk's Office Tonia DeLeon, Clerk of Court P.O. Box 519 Bogalusa, Louisiana 70429

By telephone: 985-732-6204

Sincerely,

Clerk of the City Court of Bogalusa

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 12 of 20

Exhibit B

Claim Form for $50 Extension Fee

Mail this Claim Form to: I OR I Deliver this Claim Form in Person to:

Bogalusa City Court Clerk's Office

Bogalusa City Court Clerk's Office

Attn: Tonia Deleon, Clerk of Court

202 Arkansas Ave

P.O. Box 519

Bogalusa, Louisiana 70427

Bogalusa, Louisiana 70429

Must be postmarked no later than '2017

Must be delivered in person no later than , 2017

INSTRUCTIONS 1. Please complete all sections of the Claim Form if you want to claim a refund of the $50
extension fee you paid after June 21, 2015. 2. Sign and date the declaration. 3. Return your signed and completed Claim Form, postmarked by or delivered in person by
_ _ _ _ _, 2017, to the Bogalusa City Court Clerk at the above address. Returning a completed Claim Form is the only way to receive a payment. No individual may submit more than one Claim Form. However, if you paid the extension fee multiple times, the City Court will refund you for each occasion you paid the extension fee.
Call the Clerk of Court at 985-732-6204 if you have any questions.
CLAIMANT'S INFORMATION

Last Name

First Name

Middle Name

Mailing Address

Phone Number(s)

Date of Birth

DECLARATION
I am submitting th is form because I paid a $50 extension fee after June 21, 20 I 5, to have more time to pay off fines to the Bogalusa City Court. I would like a refund of that money.

With my signature below I declare under penalty of perjury that the information in this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signature

Date

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 13 of 20
Exhibit C
PLEASE READ
Did you pay a $50 "extension fee" to the Bogalusa Citv Court after June 21, 2015?
You could be entitled to a refund.
Please read below for more details.
DATE: _ _ ____,2017
The Bogalusa City Court has agreed to provide a refund to any defendant that paid a $50 "extension fee" after June 21, 2015. The City Court charged the $50 "extension fee" to defendants who needed more time to pay off fines and court costs owed to the City Court.
If you paid the Bogalusa City Court a $50 extension fee after June 21, 2015, you may be eligible for a refund of the $50 fee.
If you want to claim your refund, you must complete a form and either mail it or bring it in person to the Clerk of the City Court within 90 days of the date appearing above.
If you sign the form and return it by the deadline and the City Court confirms you paid the extension fee after June 21, 2015, the City Court Clerk will return the $50 extension fee to you, in the form of a check made payable to you. You may cash the check without fees by going to the City Court's bank: Citizens Savings Bank, 1725 Sullivan Dr., Bogalusa, Louisiana 70427.
You can obtain a claim form in person at the address below. You can call or visit the Clerk of the Bogalusa City Court if you have any questions about whether you are eligible or how to claim your refund:
Bogalusa City Court Clerk's Office 202 Arkansas Ave
Bogalusa, Louisiana 70427
Telephone: 985-732-6204
[Date], 2017

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 14 of 20
Exhibit D
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May_, 2017
CONTACT: ----
Bogalusa City Court Will Refund Any Person who Paid a $50 "Extension" Fee on or after June 21, 2015
BOGALUSA, La. - The Bogalusa City Court will issue a refund to anyone who paid a $50
"extension" fee when they were given additional time to pay fines and court costs. The refund will be given to anyone who paid the $50 extension fee on or after June 21, 2015, and who complete a claim form by the required deadline.
To claim a refund, individuals need to complete a claim form and send it to the City Court Clerk's Office, which is located at 202 Arkansas Ave., Bogalusa, LA 70427. Claim forms will be mailed to people who paid the $50 extension fee after June 21, 2015, at their last known address, and also can be obtained in person at the City Court Clerk's Office. After a completed claim form is received and verified by the City Court, the City Court will mail or provide in person a $50 check to the individual. That check may be cashed for no fee at the Citizens Savings Bank, located at 1725 Sullivan Dr., Bogalusa, Louisiana 70427.
Individuals who believe they are eligible for a refund must submit a claim form by no later than ---~' 2017 .
Anyone with questions about whether they are entitled to a refund may contact the Bogalusa City Court Clerk of Court, at 985-732-6204.
This refund is being provided to settle part of a lawsuit titled Cook, et al. v. Black, et al., Case Number 2: 16-cv-l 1024-ILRL-MBN, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in New Orleans, by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
###

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 15 of 20

Exhibit E

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ROBERT LEVI, EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT, RICHARD BOLGIANO, BENNY GRAHAM, JAMES LORIO, BRADLEY MOSES, and MARISA PAM, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Section "B"(5)

ROBERT J. BLACK, in his individual and official capacities, and BOGALUSA CITY COURT,

Defendants.

JOINT MOTION TO (1) RETAIN LIMITED JURI DJCTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND (2) DI MlSS THE FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO RULE
4l(a)(l)(A)(ii)
COME NOW Plaintiffs and Defendants and jointly move this Court to retain jurisdiction
to enforce an agreed-upon settlement agreement for a period of 180 days and, subject to this
Court's retention of limited jurisdiction, to dismiss the Fifth Claim for Relief appearing in the
First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(l )(A)(ii). Because the Fifth Claim is
the only claim against Defendant Bogalusa City Court, the Parties further move that, subject to
this Cout1's retention of limited jurisdiction, the Bogalusa City Court be dismissed from this
action. In support of this Joint Motion, the Parties state as follows:
1. In their pleadings, Plaintiffs have alleged in the Fifth Claim for Relief that
Defendants required individuals unable to pay their monetary penalties in full to pay additional

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 16 of 20
Exhibit E
$50 "extension" fees not authorized by state law to avoid going to jail for non-payment. First
Am. Comp!. ilil 195-201 (ECF No. 67).
2. To avoid the expense and burden of protracted litigation, the Parties have reached a full and final settlement of Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for Relief.
3. Accordingly, the Parties have entered into a written Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement"), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, that memorializes the terms of their agreement to settle the Fifth Claim and is incorporated within this Motion. The Parties agree that the Agreement will fully resolve their disputes related to the Fifth Claim for Relief. The Parties further agree that with the settlement of this Claim, the only remaining relief sought by Plaintiffs is equitable.
4. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties jointly move the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement for 180 days. Subject to the Court's approval of this request to retain jurisdiction, Plaintiffs also move for dismissal of the Fifth Claim for Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii). Smal/BizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, 618 F.3d 458, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (explaining court must expressly retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement and will lack jurisdiction to do so if it fails to issue order retaining jurisdiction).
5. If the Court does not agree to continue its jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement, the Parties withdraw their motion to dismiss the Fifth Claim for Relief.
6. For the Court's convenience, the Paities have attached a proposed order granting this Motion; approving the Settlement Agreement; and dismissing the Fifth Claim for Relief, except where the Court shall continue its jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement consistent with the terms of the attached Agreement.
2

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 17 of 20

Exhibit E

DATED this - -- - --

Respectfully submitted,

Sara Zampierin* (Trial Attorney) Micah West* Samuel Brooke* Emily Early* SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36104 P: 334-956-8200 F: 334-956-8481 E: sara.zampierin@splcenter.org E: m icah.west@sp Icenter.org E: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org E: emily.early@splcenter.org
*Admitted pro hac vice
Patricia Wilton (La. Bar No. 18049) David Sanders (La. Bar No. 11696) LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 P: 225-326-6026 P: 225-326-6357 F: 225-326-6098 wiltonp@ag.louisiana.gov sandersd@ag.louisiana.gov

Ivy Wang On BehalfofPlaintiffs' Counsel
Ivy Wang (La. Bar No. 35368) SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER I 055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 P: 504-228-7279 F: 504-486-8947 E: ivy.wang@splcenter.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
~
E.B. Dittmer II On BehalfofDefendants' Counsel E. B. DITTMER II (04967) 2250 7th Street Mandeville, LA 70471 (985) 624-501 O/Fax (985) 624-5306 ted .d ittmer@talleyanthony.com ,
Attorneys for Defendants Robert J. Black, in his Individual and Official Capacities, and Bogalusa City Court

3

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 18 of 20

Exhibit E

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date the foregoing document was filed through the Court's

CM/ECF filing system, and by virtue of this filing notice will be sent electronically to all counsel

of record, including the following:

E.B. "Ted" Dittmer, II TALLEY, ANTHONY, HUGHES & KNIGHT, LLC Counsel for Defendants Robert Black and Bogalusa City Court

Shannon Dirman Patricia Wilton David Sanders LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Counsel for Defendants Robert Black and Bogalusa City Court

DATED this - - - - - - -

Ivy Wang

4

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 19 of 20

Exhibit E

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ROBERT LEVI, EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT, RICHARD BOLGIANO, BENNY GRAHAM, JAMES LORIO, BRADLEY MOSES , and MARISA PAM, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Section "B"(5)

ROBERT J. BLACK, in his individual and official capacities, and BOGALUSA CITY COURT,

Defendants.

IPROPOSED) ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion to (I) Retain Limited Jurisdiction to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and (2) Dismiss the Fifth Claim for Relief pursuant to rule 41 (a)(I )(a)(ii). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion is GRANTED, as follows:
I. The Court hereby dismisses the Fifth Claim for Relief of the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 67) pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(l )(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. The Court dismisses from this action Defendant Bogalusa City Court, as no additional claims relate to that defendant; and

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 91-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 20 of 20
Exhibit E 3. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction for 180 days to enforce the settlement agreement. See SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, 618 F.3d 458, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2010).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Senior United States District Judge
2

 
 Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 95 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-11024

BOGALUSA CITY COURT, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(5)

ORDER Considering the “Joint Motion to (1) Retain Limited

Jurisdiction to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and (2) Dismiss

the Fifth Claim for Relief Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)” (Rec.

Doc. 91),

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to the

agreement of the parties,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the fifth claim for relief in the

first amended complaint (see Rec. Doc. 67 at 39-40) is hereby

DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(a)(1)(A)(ii);

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bogalusa City Court is

hereby DISMISSED, because there are no remaining claims related to

that Defendant;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to

enforce the settlement agreement entered into by the parties (see

Rec. Doc. 91-1) for a reasonable period of time. See SmallBizPros,

Inc. v. MacDonald, 618 F.3d 458, 462-64 (5th Cir. 2010); Hosp.

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 95 Filed 06/07/17 Page 2 of 2
House, Inc. v. Gilbert, 298 F.3d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 2002); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of June, 2017.
___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 105 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-11024

BOGALUSA CITY COURT, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(5)

ORDER

Considering “Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Class

Certification” (Rec. Doc. 68),

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

to give the parties additional time to conduct discovery and

pursue, in good faith, an amicable resolution. This dismissal is

subject to reconsideration if necessary, but it appears that the

case has core issues that preclude certification of a class.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone status conference will

be held on Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. The parties should

be prepared to update the Court on the status of negotiations.

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall initiate the call into chambers after

all parties are on the line.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of June, 2017.

___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ROBERT LEVI, EBONY ROBERTS, ROZZIE SCOTT, RICHARD BOLGIANO, BENNY GRAHAM, JAMES LORIO, BRADLEY MOSES, and MARISA PAM, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Section “B”(5)

ROBERT J. BLACK, in his individual and official capacities, and BOGALUSA CITY COURT,

Defendants.

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Stipulated Settlement Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is made by and among Judge Robert J. Black (“Black”) (“Defendant”) and Richard Bolgiano (“Bolgiano”), Benny Graham (“Graham”), James Lorio (“Lorio”), Bradley Moses (“Moses”), and Marisa Pam (“Pam”) (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and each of their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. Defendant and Plaintiffs are collectively, from time to time, referred to hereinafter as the “Parties.” WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on June 21, 2016, and an Amended Complaint on January 17, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, commencing a proposed class action lawsuit entitled, Cook, et al, v. Bogalusa City Court, et al.,

1

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 2 of 27
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-11024 (the “Lawsuit”) against Defendant,1 which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages, and alleges violations of Plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a result of Defendant’s policies, practices, and customs;
WHEREAS, Defendant expressly denies any liability, fault, wrongdoing, or responsibility for any of the claims in the Lawsuit;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Parties to resolve all disputes as between and among them to settle the Lawsuit;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs agree to dismiss the Lawsuit against Defendant according to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the dismissal of the Lawsuit will only become effective upon the Court’s retention of its limited jurisdiction over the Lawsuit for two hundred seventy (270) days from the date of the Court’s approval to enforce the terms of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration passing between the Parties, and intending to be legally bound hereby, it is agreed: A. COURT’S PROCEDURES Defendant shall implement the procedures contained in the Bogalusa City Court Procedures for Appointment of Counsel, Fines and Court Costs, and Community Service,2 and made part hereof.
1 Plaintiffs also sued the Bogalusa City Court in connection with the Fifth Claim for Relief pled in the Complaint and First Amended Complaint but subsequently dismissed the Claim pursuant to a separate agreement, executed in May 2017, to settle the Fifth Claim for Relief.
2 Attached as Exhibit A.
2

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 3 of 27
B. DURATION OF AGREEMENT 1. Defendant agrees to permanently follow the process for the collection of 1899 Court Costs and Contempt fines outlined in Paragraph 5 of Exhibit A. 2. Defendant shall comply with the remaining terms of this Agreement for thirty (30) months. 3. This Agreement is contingent upon the agreement of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Agreement for a period of two hundred seventy (270) days. If the Court declines to retain jurisdiction, the Agreement will be void.
C. MONITORING AND SETTLEMENT COMPLIANCE 1. Defendant shall notify Plaintiffs’ counsel by email by close of the next business day of any City Court defendant being placed in jail for nonpayment of a fine or costs or contempt for nonperformance of community service or any other alternative to payment. Said notification shall be provided to the Southern Poverty Law Center at the following email address: micah.west@splcenter.org. The notification will include the City Court defendant’s name, the date of the order jailing the defendant, and the indigency form. If specifically requested, minute entries will be provided once they are prepared. The responsibility for providing said notifications shall last for a total period of one-hundredeighty (180) days. Said reporting period: (a) shall begin ninety (90) days after the Parties execute this Agreement and (b) shall end two-hundred-seventy (270) days from the date this Agreement is executed. 2. Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with access to audio recordings and other court records pursuant to the Louisiana Public Records Act within 7 business days of
3

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 4 of 27
Plaintiffs’ request. Plaintiffs’ counsel will make arrangements to inspect and/or copy at the City Court any audio recordings and other court records not otherwise produced in accordance with the requirement of Section C.1 by calling the Bogalusa City Court Clerk. 3. Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel by email with a copy of the City Court’s Income Statements3 twice yearly on or about July 30 and December 31. Said notification shall be provided to the Southern Poverty Law Center at the following email address: micah.west@splcenter.org. The responsibility for providing these documents will end at the expiration of this Agreement, pursuant to Section B.2. 4. Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs’ counsel the City Court’s budget proposals or amended budget requests to the City of Bogalusa within seven (7) days after they are submitted and the City of Bogalusa’s final budget or approval of any amended budget for the City Court within twenty-one (21) days after they are approved by the City. This obligation to notify is not limited to, but explicitly covers, any transfers from the City to the City Court from the special account maintained by the City of Bogalusa for costs collected pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1899.4 Said notification shall be provided to the Southern Poverty Law Center at the following email address: micah.west@splcenter.org. The responsibility for providing these documents will end at the expiration of this Agreement.
3 The Income Statements refer to the City Court’s internal accounting of all revenue generated for the City Court or disbursed to other agencies. 4 Costs collected pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1899 and a portion of contempt fees were previously deposited into the City Court’s judicial expense account. Pursuant to this Agreement, the City Court will no longer assess or collect any court costs or any portion of contempt fees that are deposited into an account controlled directly by the City Court.
4

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 5 of 27
D. WARRANT AMNESTY DAYS 1. The City Court will designate at least one week within the six months following the execution of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement during which individuals with outstanding arrest warrants for their failure to comply with a subpoena, summons, or order to appear, can appear at the City Court to receive a new hearing date and the formal notice thereof, and clear any warrants related to their failure to appear rather than being arrested. 2. The amnesty days will be publicized through a press release provided to local media outlets at least seven (7), but not more than twenty-one (21), days before the scheduled amnesty days. The press release will be posted on the window and front door of the courthouse, as well as in front of the City Court’s Clerk’s office, and on the City Court website during the same timeframe. The press release mentioned herein will contain the following sentences: “No person who appears at the City Court for an Amnesty Day will be jailed for non-payment or for a warrant for failing to appear. The Court will provide you with a new court date and an opportunity to pay your fine and court costs. If you are not sure if you have a current warrant for failure to appear, you can call the clerk’s office at (985) 732-6204.” 3. Counsel for Plaintiffs will be notified of the dates of the amnesty days, and a copy of the press release will be sent to counsel for Plaintiffs, at least one week before the start of the amnesty days.
E. DISSEMINATION OF PROCEDURES 1. Within thirty (30) days of the approval of this Agreement by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Defendant shall publish and disseminate this
5

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 6 of 27
Agreement to all personnel involved in the imposition and/or collection of fines, court costs, or other fees imposed by the City Court, including City Court staff, City Court public defenders, State and City of Bogalusa prosecutors, City Court marshals, City of Bogalusa Police Department staff, and City of Bogalusa jail staff. This publication and dissemination shall include prominent placement of Exhibit A in the City Court and City of Bogalusa Jail, and on the City Court website. F. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES 1. Each Party shall be responsible for his or her own attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with the Lawsuit. G. DISMISSAL OF LAWSUIT 1. The Parties shall file with the Court within 10 days of the execution of this Agreement a Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, Retain Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Agreement, and Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), as agreed upon by the Parties and attached hereto as Exhibit B. H. MUTUAL RELEASES 1. By Plaintiffs: Except for any violations that arise from a breach of this Agreement, Plaintiffs, on their behalves and on behalf their successors, heirs, and assigns, hereby releases, remises, and forever discharges Defendant Black and his successors, heirs, and assigns, from all claims, suits, actions, charges, demands, judgments, costs and executions present and future, known or unknown, both legal and equitable in any manner arising out of the Lawsuit. 2. By Defendant: Except for any violations that arise from a breach of this Agreement, Judge Black, on his behalf and on behalf his successors, heirs, and assigns, releases,
6

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 7 of 27
remises, and forever discharges Plaintiffs and their successors, heirs, and assigns from all claims, suits, actions, charges, demands, judgments, costs and executions present and future, known or unknown, both legal and equitable in any manner arising out of the Lawsuit. I. MISCELLANEOUS 1. This Agreement will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of the signatories hereto and their heirs and assigns. 2. No amendments of this Agreement will be valid unless made in writing and signed by all of the signatories hereto. 3. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto were on the same instrument. Each signatory to the Agreement may execute this agreement by telefax or email of a scanned copy of the signature page, which shall have the same force and effect as if executed on an original copy. 4. The Parties further agree to cooperate fully and to execute any and all supplementary documents and to take all additional actions that may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the basic terms and intent of this Agreement. 5. The Parties represent and warrant that they are not relying on the advice of any other Party, or anyone associated with them, as to legal, tax (income, estate, gift, or otherwise), or other consequences of any kind arising out of this Agreement; that they have not relied on any representations or statements, written or oral, of any other Party, except insofar as those representations or statements are set forth in this Agreement; and that they are
7

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 8 of 27

knowingly and voluntarily signing this Agreement and are not subject to duress, coercion,

or undue influence by any other Party or by anyone else.

6. The Parties understand that they have the right to obtain legal counsel to review and

evaluate this Agreement, and attest that they have done so or else have agreed to waive

this right.

7. If, after the date hereof, any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid, or

unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

8. It is the intent of the signatories that no part of this Agreement is to be presumptively

construed either against or in favor of any signatory because of the identity of the drafter.

9. Paragraph headings contained herein are for purposes of organization only and do not

constitute a part of this Agreement.

10. Any communications or notices to be provided to legal counsel for the Parties pursuant to

this Agreement will be sent in writing via email or addressed, via commercial overnight

delivery service, to the attention of the persons identified below (or as the signatories

may subsequently direct in writing):

Plaintiffs’ Counsel:

–Micah West

ATTN: Cook v. Bogalusa

Southern Poverty Law Center

400 Washington Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36104

Telephone: (334) 956-8200

Fax:

(334) 956-8481

Email: micah.west@splcenter.org

Defendant’s Counsel:

E.B. Dittmer, II, Esq. Talley Anthony Hughes & Knight, L.L.C.

8

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 9 of 27

2250 7th Street

Mandeville, LA 70471

Telephone: (985) 624-5010

Fax:

(985) 624-5306

Email: ted.dittmer@talleyanthony.com

11. This Agreement, including the referenced attachments and exhibits to the Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between and among the signatories with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, understandings, undertakings and negotiations of the Parties.

SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS

9

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 10 of 27

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 11 of 27

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 12 of 27 CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their own signature or by their duly authorized representatives.

RICHARD BOLGIANO

JAMES LORIO

_______________________

_______________________

Date ___________________

Date ___________________

BRADLEY MOSES

MARISA PAM

_______________________

_______________________

Date ___________________

Date ___________________

BENNY GRAHAM

ROBERT J. BLACK

_______________________

_______________________

Date ___________________

Date ___________________

SAMUEL BROOKE, counsel for Plaintiffs

E B DITTMER, counsel for Defendant Black

_______________________

_______________________

Date ___________________

Date ___________________

Exhibits and Forms attached to and made a part of this Agreement Exhibit “A”: Bogalusa City Court Procedures for Appointment of Counsel, Fines and Court
Costs, and Community Service, and Forms 1-5
10

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 13 of 27

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 14 of 27
Bogalusa City Court Procedures for Appointment of Counsel, Fines and Court Costs, and Community Service
1. Appointment of Counsel/Evaluation for Indigency:
At the beginning of Court, all defendants will be advised of the right to the assistance of counsel and to an indigency determination at arraignment. The Court will appoint counsel for any indigent defendant charged with an offense punishable by imprisonment, unless the Court obtains a valid waiver of counsel. The Court will also evaluate every defendant for indigency at or before the time of sentencing.
a. Waiver of Counsel: Before a defendant may validly waive her right to counsel, a defendant must sign the attached waiver of counsel form.1 The Court will make the form available at the beginning of arraignment and direct anyone with questions to talk to the public defender. If a defendant signs the form, the Court will conduct an individualized inquiry on the record to determine whether the waiver is made knowingly and intelligently under the circumstances.2
b. Counsel for direct contempt charges: Indigent defendants facing charges of direct contempt will be represented by appointed counsel if counsel has already been appointed to represent them in the underlying case. If the direct contempt proceedings will occur on the same day as the arraignment on the underlying charge(s) and counsel has not yet been appointed, the Court will first determine whether the individual is entitled to appointed counsel under this Paragraph and if the defendant is so entitled, will appoint the defendant counsel (or obtain a valid waiver of counsel) before proceeding with the direct contempt proceedings.
2. Determination of Indigency:
The Court will use the attached form3 and any additional verbal testimony that the Court, in its discretion, determines is necessary to determine indigency. The Court’s determination of indigence or non-indigence —and, in the case of a finding of nonindigence, the reasons for this finding—will be made part of the record of the proceeding and the form will become part of the defendant’s case file. Any finding of non-indigence must be made on the record before the Court may require a defendant to serve time in jail for non-payment of a fine, court costs, and fees.
The Court will follow La. R.S. 15:175 in making a determination of indigence.
1 Attached as Form 1. 2 Attached as Form 2. 3 Attached as Form 3.
11

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 15 of 27
Exhibit A
a. Pursuant to La. R.S. 15:175, a person will be presumed “indigent” for purposes of appointed counsel and the imposition of fines and court costs if she (1) receives public assistance, such as Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, Disability Insurance; (2) resides in public housing; (3) earns less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guideline; or (4) is currently serving a sentence in a correctional institution or is housed in a mental health facility.
b. Whether or not a defendant is presumptively indigent pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph(a), the Court may consider other factors, including the following, to determine whether the defendant has the ability to hire her own attorney or pay the amount owed without substantial financial hardship: income or funds from employment or any other source, including public assistance, to which the defendant is entitled, property owned by the defendant or in which she has an economic interest, outstanding obligations, the number and ages of dependents, employment and job training history and efforts to gain employment, and level of education.
3. Imposition of default time, community service and/or jail time:
The Court will post in a public location in the courtroom and at the Clerk’s payment window, and make available copies at the Clerk’s payment window, a Notice to Defendants Regarding Fines, Court Costs, and Community Service4 that reflects these agreed-upon procedures.
If imposing a fine, the Court will determine indigency based on La. R.S. 15:175 and the procedures outlined in Paragraph 2. No defendant who is found indigent following an indigence determination may be sentenced to a fine and court costs with a default jail sentence.
Nothing in this settlement agreement shall be construed to prevent the imposition of jail time on any defendant at initial sentencing if the court determines such sentence is appropriate in order to meet the State’s interest in punishment and deterrence. However, a jail sentence may not be imposed solely because the person is deemed indigent.
The imposition of a jail sentence must not be based on an indigent defendant’s inability to pay a fine, court costs, or any other amount of money to the Court.
Those defendants who have been found indigent for purposes of appointed counsel will be considered indigent for purposes of sentencing. However, because indigence determinations may be reviewed by the Court at any stage of the proceedings, it is within the Court’s discretion to review a defendant’s indigence again at a later date.
a. Payment Options for Indigent Defendants. If the Court finds it appropriate to impose a fine and court costs (a “monetary sentence”) for an indigent defendant, the Court will not impose a default jail sentence.
4 Attached as Form 4.
Exhibit A – Page 2

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 16 of 27
Exhibit A
Partial payments from indigent (and non-indigent) defendants will be accepted in person via cash or a money order on Wednesdays or Thursdays at the window of the Office of the Clerk of Court. A defendant may also mail a money order or cashier’s check to the Court. Under no circumstances will a person be charged additional court costs or fees, including late fees, for making partial payments.
b. Payment Options for Non-indigent Defendants. If the Court determines that the defendant is not indigent and further determines that the defendant is unable to pay her fines and court costs in full at sentencing, the defendant will be permitted to make partial payments before the next court date with no minimum amount required, pursuant to the manner outlined in Paragraph 3(a).
The Court will further provide written notice included on the summons5 consistent with the language required by the Financial Obligations for Criminal Offenders Act No. 260, Art. 895.5 (2017).
c. Show Cause Hearing. The Court will schedule a Show Cause Hearing for a date no sooner than two months after sentencing for any defendant ordered to pay a fine and court costs. Any defendant who has not paid her fine and court costs in full before this date will be expected to appear in person at the Show Cause Hearing.
i. If the defendant appears at the Show Cause Hearing, the Court will inquire as to the reasons for nonpayment, including whether the defendant was unable to pay the amount owed. The public defender will represent an indigent defendant at the Show Cause Hearing unless the Court obtains a valid waiver of counsel.
The Judge will proceed as follows:
1. For all defendants previously found indigent, the Judge shall consider (1) waiving or reducing the amount of the fine and costs owed based on the defendant’s financial situation, good-faith efforts to make payments to the best of her ability, and any other factors the Court finds relevant to establish that the defendant has taken to reform and improve herself; (2) giving the defendant an extension of time to make any payment(s) owed; or (3) imposing the community service sentence in lieu of payment with a proportional decrease in the default time based on any partial payments made, pursuant to the rate calculation set forth in Paragraph 3(d).

5 Attached as Form 5.

Exhibit A – Page 3

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 17 of 27
Exhibit A
2. For those defendants previously assessed default time, the Judge will determine whether they are now indigent. If they are found to be indigent, the Judge shall consider the options in paragraph 3(c)(i)(1) above. If they are found not to be indigent, the Judge may, in addition to the options identified in paragraph 3(c)(i)(1) above, activate the default time previously imposed, with a proportional decrease in the default time based on any partial payments made.
ii. If the defendant fails to appear at this hearing, the Court will follow the procedures in Paragraph 4 below.
d. Community Service. If the Judge imposes a fine with a default community service sentence or otherwise requires community service in lieu of payment, the Judge will order the defendant to perform a specific number of hours of community service based on the amount of the fine and costs owed. The amount of community service hours that the Court may impose in default of payment will be capped at no more than the fine and court costs owed divided by the rate of the current federal minimum wage (i.e. $7.25 per hour). Additionally, the Court will not sentence a defendant charged with a traffic ticket to complete more than 16 hours of community service. However, if the defendant has been charged with DWI, Reckless Operation, or Excessive Speeding, the Court shall retain the discretion to impose more than a default sentence of 16 hours of community service.
e. The Court will not require the defendant to perform more than 16 hours of community service per month, though the defendant may perform more per month if she desires.
f. No defendant sentenced to community service shall be charged a fee to sign up for, perform, or otherwise execute his or her sentence of community service.
g. The Judge will give the defendant an appropriate community service placement based on the Court’s consideration of the defendant’s physical and mental disabilities, transportation, work schedule, and childcare or caregiving responsibilities. The Judge will ask every defendant at least the following two questions before imposing a community service sentence and may, in his discretion, ask any additional questions to determine an appropriate community service placement: (1) Do you have a physical disability that would prevent you from picking up litter? (2) Are you able to perform community service on Saturday mornings?
h. Failure to Perform Community Service. If a defendant completes at least 16 hours of community service per month, she will not be subject to contempt for failure to complete the remaining hours of her community service sentence. If a defendant fails to complete at least 16 hours of community service per month, the
Exhibit A – Page 4

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 18 of 27
Exhibit A
Court may extend the time for completing community service or hold a properly noticed Show Cause Hearing.
i. If the defendant appears at the Show Cause Hearing, the Court will inquire as to the reasons for noncompliance, including whether the defendant was unable to complete the community service. The public defender will represent all indigent defendants at the hearing unless the Judge obtains a valid waiver of counsel. If after inquiry, the Judge determines there is:
1. An inability to perform community service, the Judge may (1) reduce, modify, or remit the order to perform community service, including modifying the community service placement; (2) if the person will have the ability to perform community service going forward, extend the time to perform community service; or (3) give the defendant the option of paying the remaining balance of the original fine and costs in lieu of performing the remaining community service.
2. An ability to perform community service, the Judge may consider the options listed in the previous paragraph, and may also find the defendant in contempt and impose punishment in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art 25. After defendant completes this contempt sentence, the Court will close the case and consider the sentence satisfied in full.
ii. If the defendant fails to appear at this hearing, the Court will follow the procedures in Section 4 below.
4. Failure to Appear – Direct Contempt Charge
An attachment shall issue for a defendant who fails to appear at arraignment or any hearing date for which she has been properly noticed to appear.
The Court will send notice in accordance with law.
If the defendant is arrested on the attachment, the defendant may post bond if available under the Court’s bail procedures. If the defendant fails to appear on the new hearing date, a new attachment will issue on the underlying charge.
The defendant will be held in direct contempt if the Court finds, after an opportunity for the defendant to be heard orally, that the failure to appear was contumacious6 and that
6 At a minimum, this requires a finding that the failure to appear was willful and openly defiant of the Court’s order, instead of inadvertent or due to the defendant’s inability to appear. See State v. Taylor, 451 So. 2d 691, 692 (La. Ct. App. 1984) (“In Black's Law Dictionary, 298 (rev. 5th ed. 1979), ‘contumacious’ conduct is defined as ‘wilfully stubborn and disobedient conduct.’ Burton's Legal Thesaurus, (1980), suggests that ‘contumacious’ means stubbornly disobedient, stubbornly rebellious, openly defiant, or willfully disrespectful.”).
Exhibit A – Page 5

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 19 of 27 Exhibit A
proof of service appears in the record, in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art. 21. A defendant found in contempt will be sentenced for the direct contempt in accordance with La. C.Cr.P. art 25.
If a defendant guilty of direct contempt is sentenced to a fine, with or without default time, the Court will follow the procedures in Section 3, above, to determine whether or not the imposition of default jail time and/or the jailing of a defendant for non-payment is appropriate.
5. Collection of 1899 Court Costs and Contempt fines
The Court will not assess or collect any court costs or any portion of contempt fees that will be deposited into an account controlled directly by the City Court. The City Court agrees to have all costs collected pursuant to La. R.S. 13:1899, the portion of the contempt fines, and all other fees or costs previously retained by the City Court of Bogalusa deposited into a special account maintained by the City of Bogalusa, which shall have control over the account and any disbursements made therefrom to defray the operating costs of the City Court. The Bogalusa City Court Judge will submit a yearly budget request (or amended budget requests, as needed) to the City of Bogalusa to fund the operations of the City Court and that accounts for any expenses the City is required to pay for under state law. The Judge’s budget request (and any requests for an amended budget) shall be approved by the Mayor of Bogalusa and the Bogalusa City Council in accordance with the City of Bogalusa City Charter. The City of Bogalusa, in its discretion, may allocate any funds in the special account to the City Court in whole or in part as part of any budget allocation to the City Court to off-set the costs of funding the operations of the Court.
6. Extension Fees
The Court will discontinue the use of extension fees, late fees, community service fees, or any other fees unless that fee is explicitly authorized by state law. The Court will revise its Summons to remove wording related to extension fees, late fees, community service fees, or any other fee not explicitly authorized by state law.
Exhibit A – Page 6

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 20 of 27 Exhibit A - Form 1

BOGALUSA CITY COURT WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL

You are charged with a misdemeanor or a traffic offense and may be sentenced to serve time in jail. You have the right to remain silent and to be presumed innocent until the prosecutor proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt. You also have the right to a trial before a judge. If you go to trial, you have the right to call and cross-examine witnesses and to testify or remain silent. You also have the right to be represented by an attorney at every stage of your case.

You may hire an attorney to represent you. If you would like the assistance of an attorney but if I find that you cannot afford one, I will appoint the public defender to represent you.

If you wish, you may waive your right to the assistance of an attorney. If you waive this right, you will represent yourself and must follow all rules and laws that an attorney would be expected to follow in this case.

If you waive this right to the assistance of an attorney, you can later decide at any stage of this case to withdraw this waiver. You have to tell me you are going to do this, and once I approve this decision, you can then hire your own attorney or have me decide if you are indigent and the public defender will be appointed to represent you.

________________________ Signature

________________________ Date

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 21 of 27 Exhibit A - Form 2
INDIVIDUAL INQUIRY
You are charged with ___________ and may be punished with up to six (6) months in jail. As a result, you have the right to be represented by an attorney at every stage of your case.
1. Did you sign a waiver of your right to counsel?
2. Do you understand that you have a right to an attorney at each stage of this case and that the Court will appoint an attorney to represent you if you cannot afford one?
3. Do you still wish to waive your right to counsel?

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 22 of 27 Exhibit A - Form 3

NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBERS:

BOGALUSA CITY COURT INDIGENCE DETERMINATION ASSISTANCE FORM
DOB:

HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION:
How many people live with you (including yourself)? _________ Who are they? (Provide name, relationship & age)_____________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

MONTHLY INCOME FOR THE HOUSEHOLD:

On average, how much do you make each month after taxes? This includes funds from employment and any other source, including social security and public assistance: __________________________________

Check any of the following forms of public assistance you receive:

□ Food Stamps/EBT

□SSI/Disability

□ WIC

□Medicaid

□TANF

□ Housing Assistance (public housing or Section 8)

For those individuals over the age of eighteen (18) who live with you, on average, how much does each of those individuals make each month after taxes? This includes funds from employment and any other source, including social security and public assistance: ______________________________________________________________________________

EMPLOYMENT:

Do you work?

□ Yes

□ No

If YES, where? ___________________ How long have you worked there?_________________

If NO, when was your last date of employment? _____________

Reason(s) for unemployment:________________________________________________

Last three (3) places application for employment was submitted and date of

application(s): ________________________________________________________________

SHELTER:
What is your living situation? □ Homeless □ Live w/ Family/Friends □ Rent: Private □ Rent: Public □ Incarcerated □ Mental Health Facility

□ Own □ Rent: Section 8

1

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 23 of 27 Exhibit A - Form 3

OTHER ASSETS:

Are you an owner of any immovable property

□ Yes

□ No

If YES, estimated value of the property: _________________________ and Percent ownership in this property: _________________________________________
Do you have an interest in any other property, including but not limited to pending lawsuits, successions, valuable jewelry, iPhones, computers or motor vehicles? □ Yes
□ No

If YES, list each piece of property, what percent owner are you in the property and the estimated value of the property:___________________________________________________________

OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS:

Do you have any outstanding obligations, including but not limited to child support payments,

medical expenses, mortgage, other legal financial obligations, etc.? □ Yes

□ No

If YES, please list each monthly expense, amount, and total expenses:_____________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING:

What is your highest level of education achieved?_____________________________________

Do you currently possess, or have you ever possessed any employment certifications or licenses?

□ Yes

□ No

If YES, please list all certifications you CURRENTLY possess. ______________ Please list all certifications which you have possessed in the past which are no longer valid or active and the reason(s) these certifications were not maintained: _______________________________

I hereby submit under penalty of perjury that all answers given are true and correct. I authorize the Bogalusa City Court to do any and all things reasonably necessary to verify my indigent status.

______________________________________________________________________________

Signature

Date

2

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 24 of 27 Exhibit A - Form 3
FOR THE COURT: □ The Court determines the defendant to be indigent.
For appointment of counsel only: □ The Court appoints the public defender to represent the defendant. □ The defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
□ The Court determines the defendant to be not indigent. Judge ___________________________________________ Date __________________________
3

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 25 of 27 Exhibit A - Form 4
NOTICE REGARDING FINES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
Fines and Court Costs
1. How much time will I have to pay if the Court sentences me to fines and court costs?
The Court will give you at least two months to pay if you cannot pay your fine and court costs immediately. The Court will give you a Summons with a time and date that you must return for a Show Cause Hearing. Your appearance at this hearing and any subsequent hearings is mandatory, unless you have already paid all the money you owe. If you fail to appear at your hearing, a warrant may be issued for your arrest and you may be subject to contempt charges.
2. Should I come to court if I don’t have the money to pay my fine and court costs?
You should come to the Show Cause Hearing even if you cannot pay all your fines and court costs. A warrant will generally be issued for your arrest if you miss a court date.
3. Will I go to jail if I cannot pay my fine and court costs?
You cannot be put in jail solely for your inability to pay your fines and court costs. You can be put in jail only if you had the ability to pay but intentionally did not pay.
4. What will happen at my “Show Cause” hearing?
At your “Show Cause” hearing, the Court will ask you if you paid your fines and court costs.
If you are indigent—meaning that you are unable to pay your fine and court costs—the Court may (1) waive or reduce the amount of the fine and costs owed; (2) give you an extension of time to pay; or (3) order you to complete community service in lieu of payment.
If the Court finds that you are not indigent—meaning that the Court finds that you are able to pay but willfully failed to pay—the Court may impose a jail sentence for non-payment.
5. Can I get an extension of time to pay?
You may ask for more time to pay your fines and costs at your Show Cause Hearing. The Court may ask you whether you are working or have other sources of income as well as about your expenses (i.e. rent, childcare, utilities, food, clothing, medical condition/bills, transportation, etc.). The Court may also ask about your efforts to obtain the money to pay, including your job skills and whether you have applied for jobs. You should be prepared to explain at your Show Cause Hearing any financial hardship you are experiencing in paying your fines and costs.
6. Does the Court accept partial payments?
Yes, the Court will accept partial payments before your Show Cause Hearing. Partial payments will only be accepted on Wednesday and Thursdays at the Clerk’s Office.
1

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 26 of 27 Exhibit A - Form 4
Community Service
1. How many hours of community service do I have to perform?
The Court will tell you how many hours you must complete The Court will sentence you to complete no more hours than what it would take to pay off your fine at a minimum wage-rate of $7.25 per hour. If you have a traffic ticket (except driving under the influence, excessive speeding, or reckless operation), the Court will not require you to perform more than 16 hours of community service.
2. How much time will I be given to complete community service?
The Court will give you a reasonable amount of time to complete your community service. The Court will expect you to perform at least 16 hours per month.
You will be given a Summons with a time and date for a hearing to show proof of completion of community service. Your appearance at this hearing is mandatory, unless you have shown the clerk proof that you have completed your community service and the clerk has confirmed that you do not have to appear in court. If you fail to appear at the hearing, a warrant may be issued for your arrest and you may be subject to contempt charges.
At that court date, the Court will ask you for proof, signed by a supervisor, showing how many community service hours you performed. Before coming to court, you should have your supervisor write and sign a letter or fill out or complete a form documenting how many community service hours you performed.
3. Where can I complete my community service hours?
The Court will tell you where you must complete your community service at your court date. Please let the Court know at your hearing if you have a physical or mental disability or a work or any other conflict that will make it difficult for you to complete the community service.
4. Can I go to jail if I failed to complete community service?
You can go to jail if you intentionally failed to complete your hours of community service. You will not be sentenced to jail if you complete a minimum of 16 hours of community service per month.
You must come to the hearing even if you did not complete all your community service hours. If you failed to complete community service, the Court will ask you to explain why. You should tell the Court if you have a disability or other reasons why you cannot complete your hours. You may also ask for more time to finish the community service.
5. Will the Court charge me any fees to perform community service?
No, the Court will not charge you any fees to perform community service.
2

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 113-1 Filed 09/01/17 Page 27 of 27 Exhibit A - Form 5

SUMMONS CITY OF BOGALUSA versus __________________________ No. ____________________ TO: ____________________________________residing at ____________________________:

You are hereby summoned to appear before the City Court of Bogalusa, Louisiana, held at the

City Hall on _________________________ at 10:00AM, for a Show Cause Hearing if you

have not paid or performed:

□ Restitution

□ Drug Screen

□ SACAY

□ DIP

□ Counseling

□ $75 Probation Fee □ $40 Public Defender Fee

□ Proof of Completion of ________ Hours of Community Service at _______________

□ Fines and Costs in the Amount of $________

□ Other _________________________ (Explain)

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE HEARING ON THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PROOF OF SATISFACTION OF FINANCIAL OBLIGATION:

(a) Payment of a fine and costs may be made prior to your rule to show cause hearing date in partial or installment payments.

(b) At the rule to show cause hearing, the court will evaluate your ability to pay the fines and fees listed above.

(c) You are ordered to bring any documentation or information that you want the court to consider in determining your ability to pay.

(d) Your failure to make a payment toward the ordered financial obligation may result in your incarceration only if the court finds, after a hearing, that you had the ability to pay and willfully refused to do so.

(e) You have the right to be represented by counsel of your choice. If you cannot afford counsel, you have the right to be represented by a court-appointed lawyer at no cost to you.

(f) If you are unable to make a payment toward the ordered financial obligation, you may request payment alternatives including but not limited to community service, a reduction of the amount owed, or both.

(g) During the hearing, you will have a meaningful opportunity to explain why you have not paid the above-listed amounts by presenting evidence and testimony.

HEREIN FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF THE LAW. Given under my hand officially in Bogalusa, Louisiana, this
_______________________ Clerk, City Court of Bogalusa

Received this summons, together with a certified copy, on the _____ day of _______________ 20____, and served same on the _____ day of _______________ 20____, by handing to ___________________________________at______________________________, and make this my return on the _____ day of _______________ 20___.

 
 Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 114 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATASHA COOK, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-11024

BOGALUSA CITY COURT, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(5)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Considering the “Joint Motion to (1) Approve Settlement

Agreement, (2) Retain Jurisdiction to Enforce the Agreement, and

(3) Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)” (Rec. Doc. 113),

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART;

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement

attached to the parties’ motion (Rec. Doc. 113-1) is approved;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action be and is hereby

dismissed without costs and without prejudice to the right, upon

good cause shown, to reopen the action or to seek summary judgment

enforcing the compromise if settlement is not consummated. The

Court retains jurisdiction for all purposes, including enforcing

the settlement agreement entered into by the parties, for a

reasonable period of time. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2); Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994); Hosp.

House, Inc. v. Gilbert, 298 F.3d 424, 430 (5th Cir. 2002).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions between the

settling parties are DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Case 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN Document 114 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 2
COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT, IF WITNESSES HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED, EVERY WITNESS MUST BE NOTIFIED BY COUNSEL NOT TO APPEAR.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 5th day of September, 2017.
___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
CLASS_REQUESTED,CLOSED,PROTO
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16-cv-11024-ILRL-MBN

Cook et al v. Bogalusa City Court et al Assigned to: Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael North Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff Latasha Cook on behalf of herself and those similarly situated

Date Filed: 06/21/2016 Date Terminated: 09/05/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Sara Zampierin Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery) 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8326 Email: sara.zampierin@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery) 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8200 Email: emily.early@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 1055 St. Charles Ave. Suite 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 334-956-8200 Email: ivy.wang@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

Micah West Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery) 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8200 Email: micah.west@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE
1/16

10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Robert Levi on behalf of himself and those similarly situated

Samuel J. Brooke Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery) 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334-956-8200 Email: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Zampierin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Micah West (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ebony Roberts on behalf of herself and those similarly situated

Samuel J. Brooke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Zampierin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

2/16

10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
Micah West (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rozzie Scott on behalf of herself and those similarly situated

Samuel J. Brooke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Zampierin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Micah West (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Richard Bolgiano on behalf of himself and those similarly situated

Samuel J. Brooke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Zampierin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

Micah West (See above for address)
3/16

10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live (See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Benny Graham on behalf of himself and those similarly situated

Samuel J. Brooke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Zampierin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Micah West (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
James Lorio on behalf of himself and those similary situated

Samuel J. Brooke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Zampierin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

Micah West (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
4/16

10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bradley Moses on behalf of himself and those similary situated

Samuel J. Brooke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Zampierin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Micah West (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marisa Pam on behalf of herself and those similarly situated

Samuel J. Brooke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Zampierin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Emily C.R. Early (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ivy Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Micah West (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel J. Brooke

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

5/16

10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live Samuel J. Brooke
(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Bogalusa City Court TERMINATED: 06/07/2017
Defendant Robert J. Black in his individual and ofﬁcial capacities

represented by Edward Brewster Dittmer , II Talley, Anthony, Hughes & Knight, LLC (Mandeville) 2250 7th St. Mandeville, LA 70471 985-624-5010 Email: ted.dittmer@talleyanthony.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Glen Sanders Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division P.O. Box 94005 1885 North 3rd St. Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005 225-326-6300 Fax: 225-326-6192 Email: sandersd@ag.louisiana.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Hill Wilton Louisiana Department of Justice Attorney General's Ofﬁce P. O. Box 94005 Capitol Station Baton Rouge, LA 70804 225-326-6000 Email: wiltonp@ag.state.la.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Bates Dirmann Louisiana Department of Justice (Baton Rouge) 1885 N. 3rd Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225-326-6026 Email: dirmanns@ag.louisiana.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Brewster Dittmer , II (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

6/16

10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
David Glen Sanders (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Molly Lyn Manieri Talley, Anthony, Hughes & Knight, LLC (Mandeville) 2250 7th St. Mandeville, LA 70471 985-624-5010 Email: molly.manieri@talleyanthony.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Hill Wilton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shannon Bates Dirmann (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/21/2016
06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016
06/21/2016
06/21/2016
06/21/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Plaintiffs (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 053L-5511246) ﬁled by Rozzie Scott, Latasha Cook, Ebony Roberts, Robert Levi.Attorney Ivy Wang added to party Latasha Cook(pty:pla), Attorney Ivy Wang added to party Robert Levi(pty:pla), Attorney Ivy Wang added to party Ebony Roberts(pty:pla), Attorney Ivy Wang added to party Rozzie Scott(pty:pla).(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
2 Summons Submitted for Issuance (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
3 Summons Submitted for Issuance (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
4 ***FILED IN ERROR - TO BE RE-FILED*** - EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages of Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Temporary Retraining Order or Preliminary Injunction by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 6/21/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 06/21/2016)
5 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Temporary Restraining Order, # 3 Proposed Order Proposed Preliminary Injunction)(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
6 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Hearing, MOTION for Hearing re 5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
7 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Micah West in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certiﬁcation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P,

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

7/16

10/22/2017
06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016 06/21/2016
06/21/2016
06/21/2016
06/21/2016
06/21/2016

LAED CM/ECF - Live
# 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V)(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
8 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Ebony Roberts (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
9 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Rozzie Scott (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
10 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Latasha Cook (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
11 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Robert Levi (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
12 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Douglas Levi (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
13 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Davina Cole (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
14 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Dallas Magee (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
15 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Chequietta Henry (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
16 Declaration by All Plaintiffs : Declaration of Alexis Dixon (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
17 Initial Case Assignment to Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle and Magistrate Judge Michael North. (jeg) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
18 Civil Cover Sheet Submitted (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
19 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Samuel Brooke (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L-5512198) by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Samuel Brooke in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certiﬁcate of Good Standing, # 3 Exhibit CM/ECF Registration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
20 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Micah West (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L-5512239) by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Micah West in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certiﬁcate of Good Standing, # 3 Exhibit CM/ECF Registration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
21 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Emily Early (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L-5512293) by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Emily Early in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certiﬁcate of Good Standing, # 3 Exhibit CM/ECF Registration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
22 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Sara Zampierin (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L-5512332) by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Sara Zampierin in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certiﬁcate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order) (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
23 DEFICIENT - EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Certify Class by Latasha Cook,

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

8/16

10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Afﬁdavit of Samuel Brooke in Support of Motion for Class Certiﬁcation, # 3 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 6/22/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

24 Summons Issued as to Robert J. Black, Bogalusa City Court. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(ijg) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/21/2016

25 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Filing, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction by Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Corrected Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/21/2016)

06/22/2016

26 ***DEFICIENT*** - SUMMONS Returned Executed; Robert J. Black served on 6/22/2016, answer due 7/13/2016. (Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 6/23/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 06/22/2016)

06/22/2016

27 ***DEFICIENT*** - SUMMONS Returned Executed; Bogalusa City Court served on 6/22/2016, answer due 7/13/2016. (Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 6/23/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 06/22/2016)

06/23/2016

28 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Robert J. Black served on 6/22/2016, answer due 7/13/2016. (Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 6/24/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016

29 SUMMONS Returned Executed; Bogalusa City Court served on 6/22/2016, answer due 7/13/2016. (Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 6/24/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016

30 MOTION to Certify Class by Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. Motion(s) will be submitted on 7/20/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Afﬁdavit of Samuel Brooke in Support, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016

31 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott regarding 30 MOTION to Certify Class (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016

32 ORDER AND REASONS: For the reasons outlined, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to ﬁle and substitute ﬁling (Rec. Doc. 25) is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED; the request for a preliminary injunction will be HELD IN ABEYANCE. A preliminary injunction hearing is tentatively set for Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants have until July 5, 2016 to ﬁle any opposition memoranda in accordance with Local Rule 7.5. FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to set a speedy hearing on claim two of the complaint is DENIED.. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/23/2016.(cms) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016

33 ORDER granting 19 20 21 22 Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Samuel J. Brooke, Micah West, Emily C.R. Early, Sara Zampierin. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/23/2016. (cms) (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/23/2016

34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs re 32 Order, 33 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed docket text only on 6/24/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 06/23/2016)

06/27/2016

35 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Edward Brewster Dittmer, II added to party Robert J. Black(pty:dft).(Dittmer, Edward) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/27/2016

36 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Continue , Joint MOTION to Enforce Agreed Stipulation by Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Brooke, Samuel) Modiﬁed on 6/28/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 06/27/2016)

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

9/16

10/22/2017
06/27/2016

LAED CM/ECF - Live
37 ORDER granting 35 Motion to Enroll E.B. Dittmer II as Counsel of Record for Robert J. Black. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg) (Entered: 06/27/2016)

06/28/2016

38 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 36 Joint MOTION to Continue, Joint MOTION to Enforce Agreed Stipulation ; Filing attorney did not select Robert J. Black as a ﬁler(s). Clerk added ﬁler(s). (ijg) (Entered: 06/28/2016)

06/28/2016

39 ORDER Granting 36 Joint MOTION to Continue Joint MOTION to Enforce Agreed Stipulation . Further Ordered that the 30 MOTION to Certify Class and the 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction are Dismissed Without Prejudice. Further Ordered that within 46 days the parties shall jointly ﬁle a motion as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle.(ijg) (Entered: 06/29/2016)

07/27/2016

40 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Bogalusa City Court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Edward Brewster Dittmer, II added to party Bogalusa City Court(pty:dft).(Dittmer, Edward) (Entered: 07/27/2016)

07/28/2016

41 ORDER granting 40 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg) (Entered: 07/28/2016)

08/10/2016

42 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record Shannon Dirmann, Patricia Wilton and David Sanders by Robert J. Black, Bogalusa City Court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Shannon Bates Dirmann added to party Robert J. Black(pty:dft), Attorney Shannon Bates Dirmann added to party Bogalusa City Court(pty:dft).(Dirmann, Shannon) Modiﬁed text on 8/10/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 08/10/2016)

08/10/2016

43 ORDER granting 42 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Patricia Hill Wilton,David Glen Sanders, Shannon B. Dirmann for Robert J. Black and Bogalusa City Court. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/10/2016. (my) (Entered: 08/10/2016)

08/12/2016

44 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Set a Scheduling Order , MOTION to Continue by Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Robert J. Black, Bogalusa City Court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 8/15/2016 (ijg). (Entered: 08/12/2016)

08/15/2016

45 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 44 MOTION to Set a Scheduling Order MOTION to Continue ; Filing attorney did not add Robert J. Black and Bogalusa City Court as ﬁlers. Clerk added ﬁlers. (ijg) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/16/2016

46 ORDER Granting 36 Joint MOTION to set a Scheduling Conference and to Continue. A telephone Scheduling Conference set for 10/27/2016 09:30 AM before case manager. The parties shall call in for the conference. Further Ordered that all scheduling and discovery deadlines are continued for 60 days from the date of this order. Further Ordered that the parties' joint stipulation shall remain in effect for 60 days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle.(ijg) (Entered: 08/16/2016)

10/14/2016

47 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations by Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Bogalusa City Court, Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Zampierin, Sara) Modiﬁed ﬁlers on 10/14/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 10/14/2016)

10/17/2016

48 ORDER GRANTING 47 Motion to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The parties' joint stipulations (see Rec. Docs. 36 , 39 , 46 ) shall remain in effect and be fully enforceable by this Court for sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines shall remain unaltered. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 10/17/2016. (mmv) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/27/2016 49 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/28/2017 02:00 PM before

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

10/16

10/22/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. Bench Trial set for 10/16/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. All discovery must be completed by 8/29/2017. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (Attachments: # 1 Pretrial Notice Form)(ijg) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

11/23/2016

50 **WITHDRAWN PER ORDER REC. DOC. #55** EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations by Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Bogalusa City Court, Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Early, Emily) Modiﬁed text/ﬁlers on 11/25/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 11/23/2016)

11/23/2016

51 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by the Parties by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Bogalusa City Court, Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Zampierin, Sara) Modiﬁed text/ﬁlers on 11/25/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 11/23/2016)

11/25/2016

52 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 50 Joint MOTION to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations, 51 MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by the Parties. **The title of the attached proposed order should not include the word 'Proposed' but only reﬂect 'Order' on the actual document.** (mmv) (Entered: 11/25/2016)

11/28/2016

53 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Motion ﬁled in Error re 50 Joint MOTION to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text on 11/29/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/29/2016

54 ORDER GRANTING 51 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. The deadline for ﬁling any amendments to pleadings, third-party actions, cross-claims, and/or counter-claims is hereby extended from November 28, 2016 to January 6, 2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other deadlines shall remain unaltered. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 11/29/2016. (mmv) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

11/29/2016

55 ORDER GRANTING 53 Motion to Withdraw Motion Filed in Error re 50 Joint MOTION to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 11/29/2016. (mmv) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

12/16/2016

56 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Bogalusa City Court, Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Zampierin, Sara) Modiﬁed text/ﬁlers on 12/19/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/19/2016

57 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 56 Joint MOTION to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations. **Filing attorney did not enter additional ﬁler(s) in the blank text box on the docket text screen. Clerk added ﬁler(s).** (mmv) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/20/2016

58 ORDER GRANTING 56 Motion to Continue to Enforce the Parties' Stipulations as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 12/19/2016. (mmv) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

01/06/2017

59 **DEFICIENT** AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants ﬁled by Rozzie Scott, Latasha Cook, Ebony Roberts, Robert Levi. (Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 1/9/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

60 **DEFICIENT** MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs. Motion(s) will be submitted on 3/1/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission and Request for Oral Argument)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed on 1/9/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 01/06/2017)

01/06/2017

61 Declaration by Plaintiffs of Micah West (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to West Decl., # 2 Exhibit B to West Decl., # 3 Exhibit C to West Decl., # 4 Exhibit D to West Decl., # 5 Exhibit E to West Decl., # 6 Exhibit F to West Decl., # 7 Exhibit G to West Decl., # 8

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

11/16

10/22/2017
01/06/2017
01/09/2017 01/10/2017 01/12/2017 01/17/2017 01/17/2017 01/17/2017 01/17/2017 01/26/2017 01/26/2017
01/27/2017 02/06/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
Exhibit H to West Decl., # 9 Exhibit I to West Decl., # 10 Exhibit J to West Decl., # 11 Exhibit K to West Decl., # 12 Exhibit L to West Decl., # 13 Exhibit M to West Decl., # 14 Exhibit N to West Decl., # 15 Exhibit O to West Decl., # 16 Exhibit P to West Decl., # 17 Exhibit Q to West Decl., # 18 Exhibit R to West Decl., # 19 Exhibit S to West Decl., # 20 Exhibit T to West Decl., # 21 Exhibit U to West Decl., # 22 Exhibit V to West Decl.) (Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed ﬁlers on 1/9/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 01/06/2017)
62 NOTICE by Plaintiffs of Filing of Declarations. (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit of Samuel Brooke, # 2 Afﬁdavit of Sarah Bechdel, # 3 Afﬁdavit of Richard Bolgiano, # 4 Afﬁdavit of Bradley Moses, # 5 Afﬁdavit of Benny Graham, # 6 Afﬁdavit of James Lorio, # 7 Afﬁdavit of Marisa Pam)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text/ﬁlers on 1/9/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 01/06/2017)
63 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 61 Declaration, 62 Notice (Other).** Unless ordered by the Court, please do not change/edit the original case caption for any ﬁlings in this matter. Also, when selecting ﬁlers, please select All Plaintiffs if the document you are ﬁling is on behalf of all plaintiffs.** (mmv) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
64 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint, by Latasha Cook, Robert Levi, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading First Amended Complaint, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text on 1/11/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 01/10/2017)
65 ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE for 2/23/2017 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael North. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (bwn) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
66 ORDER GRANTING 64 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/12/2017. (mmv) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
67 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Robert J. Black, Bogalusa City Court ﬁled by Rozzie Scott, Latasha Cook, Ebony Roberts, Robert Levi.(mmv) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
68 Renewed MOTION for Class Certiﬁcation by Richard Bolgiano, Benny Graham, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam. Motion(s) will be submitted on 3/15/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text on 1/17/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 01/17/2017)
69 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by All Plaintiffs regarding 68 MOTION to Certify Class (Wang, Ivy) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
70 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re 67 Amended Complaint by Robert J. Black, Bogalusa City Court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Dittmer, Edward) Modiﬁed text/added linkage on 1/26/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 01/26/2017)
71 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 70 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer . **Document should have been linked to another document by checking the box 'Should the document you are ﬁling link to another document' or by selecting a related document on other appropriate screen. Clerk took corrective action by linking document to document 67.** (mmv) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
72 ORDER GRANTING 70 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 67 Amended Complaint as to Robert J. Black answer due 2/6/2017; Bogalusa City Court answer due 2/6/2017. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/27/2017.(mmv) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
73 ANSWER to 67 Amended Complaint by Robert J. Black, Bogalusa City Court.(Dittmer, Edward) (Entered: 02/06/2017)

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

12/16

10/22/2017
02/08/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
74 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Extend Enforcement of the Parties' Stipulations by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Bogalusa City Court, Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text/ﬁlers on 2/9/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 02/08/2017)

02/09/2017

75 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 74 MOTION to Extend Enforcement of the Parties' Stipulations . **Filing attorney did not enter additional ﬁler(s) in the blank text box on the docket text screen. Clerk added ﬁler(s).** (mmv) (Entered: 02/09/2017)

02/13/2017

76 ORDER GRANTING 74 Joint Motion to Extend Enforcement of the Parties Stipulations. The parties' 36 joint stipulations, which this Court previously adopted and extended (Rec. Docs. 39 , 46 , 48 , 58 ), shall remain in effect and be fully enforceable until March 6, 2017. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 2/10/2017. (mmv) (Entered: 02/13/2017)

02/23/2017

77 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael North: Settlement Conference held on 2/23/2017. Negotiations were productive but unfortunately no resolution of Plaintiffs' claims could be achieved at this time. The settlement conference will be reconvened on March 15, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. (bwn) (Entered: 03/01/2017)

03/03/2017

78 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Continue Submission Date re rec. doc. 68 by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Robert J. Black, Bogalusa City Court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text/ﬁlers on 3/6/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/03/2017

79 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Extend Enforcement of the Parties' Stipulations and Adopt and Enforce a Modiﬁed Stipulation by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott, Bogalusa City Court, Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text/ﬁlers on 3/6/2017 (mmv). (Entered: 03/03/2017)

03/06/2017

80 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 78 Joint MOTION to Continue Submission Date by the Parties. **Filing attorney did not enter additional ﬁler(s) in the blank text box on the docket text screen. Clerk addedﬁler(s).** (mmv) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/06/2017

81 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 79 Joint MOTION to Extend Enforcement of the Parties' Stipulations and Adopt and Enforce a Modiﬁed Stipulation by the Parties. **Filing attorney did not enter additional ﬁler(s) in the blank text box on the docket text screen. Clerk added ﬁler(s).** (mmv) (Entered: 03/06/2017)

03/07/2017

82 ORDER RESCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE for 4/7/2017 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael North. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (bwn) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/07/2017

83 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 78 motion is GRANTED. The submission date for Plaintiffs' 68 Renewed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation is hereby CONTINUED to May 10, 2017. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/6/2017.(mmv) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

03/07/2017

84 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 79 motion is GRANTED. The parties' 36 joint stipulations, except with regard to the City's assessment, collection, and control of 13:1899 costs and contempt fees shall remain in effect and be fully enforceable until April 21, 2017. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/6/2017. (mmv) (Entered: 03/07/2017)

04/10/2017

85 ORDER CANCELLING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(bwn) (Entered: 04/10/2017)

05/01/2017 86 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition ﬁled by Robert J. Black re 68 Renewed

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

13/16

10/22/2017
05/02/2017 05/08/2017 05/09/2017 05/09/2017 06/02/2017
06/05/2017
06/06/2017 06/07/2017 06/07/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
MOTION for Class Certiﬁcation . (Attachments: # 1 Afﬁdavit Tonia Deleon)(Dittmer, Edward) Modiﬁed text on 5/4/2017 (jls). (Entered: 05/01/2017)
87 ORDER regarding 69 Request/Statement of Oral Argument. IT IS ORDERED that the request is DENIED subject to further Court Order. At this time, the Court will consider Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation (Rec. Doc. 68) on the parties' brieﬁngs. If it later appears to the Court that oral argument would be helpful, it will be ordered. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 5/2/2017.(cg) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
88 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation (Doc No 68) by Richard Bolgiano, Benny Graham, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Reply Brief, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Proposed Order)(Brooke, Samuel) Modiﬁed text on 5/9/2017 (jls). (Entered: 05/08/2017)
89 ORDER GRANTING 88 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certiﬁcation. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 5/9/2017. (mmv) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
90 Reply ﬁled by All Plaintiffs, in Support of 68 Renewed MOTION for Class Certiﬁcation . (mmv) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
91 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Retain Limited Jurisdiction to Enforce the Settlement Agreement , and MOTION to Dismiss the Fifth Claim for Relief Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by Robert J. Black, Bogalusa City Court, and , by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Stipulated Settlement Agreement Related to Fifth Claim for Relief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text/ﬁlers on 6/5/2017 (jls). (Entered: 06/02/2017)
92 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 91 MOTION Retain Jurisdiction to Enforce Agreed-Upon Settlement Agreement MOTION to Dismiss Fifth Claim MOTION to Dismiss Party. **1) Filing attorney selected three reliefs for a two-relief motion. Clerk took corrective action by removing the relief Motion to Dismiss Party. **2)Filing attorney did not enter additional ﬁler(s) in the blank text box on the docket text screen. Clerk added ﬁler(s).** (jls) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
93 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Entry of Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Conﬁdential Information by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. Motion(s) referred to Michael North. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Early, Emily) Modiﬁed text on 6/7/2017 (jls). (Entered: 06/06/2017)
94 ORDER GRANTING 69 Request/Statement of Oral Argument regarding 68 MOTION to Certify Class. IT IS ORDERED that the Court will hear oral arguments in open court on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/6/2017. (mmv) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
95 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 91 motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ﬁfth claim for relief in the ﬁrst amended complaint (see Rec. Doc. 67 at 39-40) is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bogalusa City Court is hereby DISMISSED, because there are no remaining claims related to that Defendant; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement entered into by the parties (see Rec. Doc. 91-1) for a reasonable period of time. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/6/2017. (mmv) (Entered: 06/07/2017)

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

14/16

10/22/2017
06/07/2017
06/09/2017
06/13/2017 06/19/2017 06/19/2017 06/20/2017 06/21/2017 06/21/2017
06/21/2017 06/22/2017
07/20/2017 07/20/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
96 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 93 MOTION for Protective Order. **Name of attorney who electronically ﬁled this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log-in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary.** (jls) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
97 EXPARTE/CONSENT Second MOTION for Protective Order for the Production and Exchange of Conﬁdential Information by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. Motion(s) referred to Michael North. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order with changes tracked, # 2 Proposed Order with changes accepted)(Brooke, Samuel) Modiﬁed text on 6/12/2017 (jls). (Entered: 06/09/2017)
98 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North.(bwn) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
99 EXPARTE/CONSENT Unopposed MOTION to Extend Deadline to Submit Expert Reports by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Early, Emily) Modiﬁed text on 6/20/2017 (jls). (Entered: 06/19/2017)
100 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend 49 Scheduling Order to Reschedule Pre-Trial Conference by Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dittmer, Edward) Modiﬁed text on 6/20/2017 (jls). (Entered: 06/19/2017)
101 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 100 MOTION to Amend 49 Scheduling Order. **The title of the attached proposed order should not include the word 'Proposed' but only reﬂect 'Order' on the actual document. ** (jls) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
102 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle: Motion Hearing held on 6/21/2017 re 68 MOTION for Class Certiﬁcation ﬁled by Marisa Pam, Bradley Moses, James Lorio, Benny Graham, Richard Bolgiano. (Court Reporter Cathy Pepper.) (ijg) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
103 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 99 motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, written reports of experts, as deﬁned by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), who may be witnesses for Plaintiffs, fully setting forth all matters about which they will testify and the basis therefor shall be obtained and delivered to counsel for Defendant as soon as possible, but in no event later than July 31, 2017. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/21/2017. (mmv) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
104 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 100 motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the pretrial conference previously scheduled for September 28, 2017 is hereby RESCHEDULED for Friday, September 22, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/21/2017.(mmv) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
105 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 68 motion is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to give the parties additional time to conduct discovery and pursue, in good faith, an amicable resolution. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone status conference will be held on Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/22/2017.(mmv) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
106 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Molly L. Manieri by Robert J. Black. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Molly Lyn Manieri added to party Robert J. Black(pty:dft).(Manieri, Molly) Modiﬁed text on 7/21/2017 (jls). (Entered: 07/20/2017)
107 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle: Status Conference

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

15/16

10/22/2017
07/21/2017 07/25/2017 07/25/2017 08/03/2017 08/16/2017 09/01/2017
09/05/2017

LAED CM/ECF - Live
held on 7/20/2017. IT IS ORDERED that the parties are to submit a joint letter to Chambers no later than Tuesday, July 25, 2017 to update the Court on the status of negotiations. (mmv) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
108 ORDER GRANTING 106 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 7/21/2017. (mmv) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
109 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Extend Deadlines by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text on 7/25/2017 (jls). (Entered: 07/25/2017)
110 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 109 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than Tuesday, August 1, 2017, the parties are to (1) submit a joint letter to Chambers updating the Court on the status of negotiations or (2) ﬁle a notice of settlement into the record. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 7/25/2017. (jls) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
111 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that no later than Tuesday, August 15, 2017, the parties are to (1) submit a joint letter to Chambers updating the Court on the status of negotiations or (2) ﬁle a notice of settlement into the record. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/2/2017.(jls) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
112 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that no later than Tuesday, September 5, 2017, the parties are to (1) submit a joint letter to Chambers updating the Court on the status of negotiations or (2) ﬁle a notice of settlement into the record. The parties are again reminded that, until settlement is ﬁnalized, they must comply with this Court's other deadlines. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 8/16/2017.(mmv) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
113 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Approve Settlement Agreement, MOTION to Retain Jurisdiction to Enforce the Agreement, and MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), by Robert J. Black and by Richard Bolgiano, Latasha Cook, Benny Graham, Robert Levi, James Lorio, Bradley Moses, Marisa Pam, Ebony Roberts, Rozzie Scott. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Stipulated Settlement Agreement, # 2 Proposed Order)(Wang, Ivy) Modiﬁed text on 9/1/2017 (jls). (Entered: 09/01/2017)
114 ORDER OF DISMISSAL: IT IS ORDERED that the 113 motion is GRANTED IN PART; IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the [113-1] Settlement Agreement attached to the parties' motion is approved; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action be and is hereby dismissed without costs and without prejudice; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions between the settling parties are DISMISSED AS MOOT, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 9/5/2017.(jls) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

hs0328
Docket Report
16

10/22/2017 22:23:04

Client Code:

Search Criteria:

2:16-cv-11024-ILRLMBN

Cost:

1.60

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?388376965233729-L_1_0-1

16/16