STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NUMBER 2023 CA 1167

DR. RALPH SLAUGHTER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED

VERSUS

LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ITS

FIDUCIARIES, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CLERKS OF COURT

FOR ALL DISTRICT, APPELLATE, AND SUPREME COURTS, THE

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR, 123 INSURANCE COMPANY, AND XYZ

INSURANCE COMPANY

OCT 0 3 202k

Judgment Rendered: 

Appealed from the

Nineteenth Judicial District Court

In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge

State of Louisiana

Suit Number C727578

Honorable Kelly Balfour, Presiding

Dr. Ralph Slaughter Plaintiff/Appellant

Baton Rouge, LA Pro Se

Harry Rosenberg Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

New Orleans, LA Sandra Vujnovich, the Judicial

Administrator for the Louisiana

And Supreme Court; Veronica Koclanes, 

Clerk of Court for the Louisiana

Sheri M. Morris Supreme Court; and Rodd Naquin, 

Baton Rouge, LA Clerk of Court for the Louisiana First

Circuit Court of Appeal

Vicki M. Crochet Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

Peyton T. Gascon Barbara McManus, Ternisha

Baton Rouge, LA Hutchinson, LASERS Employee

Defendants, and LASERS Trustee

Defendants

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., PENZATO, AND STROMBERG, JJ. 
GUIDRY, C.J., 

Dr. Ralph Slaughter appeals from a district court judgment sustaining a

peremptory exception raising the objections of no right of action and no cause of

action filed by defendants, Sandra Vujnovich, the Judicial Administrator for the

Louisiana Supreme Court, Veronica Koclanes, Clerk of Court for the Louisiana

Supreme Court, and Rodd Naquin, Clerk of Court for the Louisiana First Circuit

Court of Appeal, and dismissing his claims against them with prejudice. Dr. 

Slaughter also appeals the portion ofthe district court' s judgment denying his motion

to recuse the district court judge. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The history of litigation between Dr. Slaughter and various defendants

regarding the inclusion of supplemental pay in the calculation of his retirement

benefit and in calculation of his terminal pay spans over ten years. The following

recitation of facts and procedural history is set forth in Slaughter v. Board of

Supervisors of Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 10- 

1049 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 8/ 2/ 11), 76 So. 3d 438, writ denied, 11- 2110 ( La. 1/ 13/ 12), 

77 So. 3d 970, (Slaughter I) and Slaughter v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement

System, 20-0881 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 25/ 21), 322 So. 3d 839, writ denied, 21- 00567

La. 6/ 22/21), 318 So. 3d 706 ( Slaughter II). 

In 2006, the Southern University Board of Supervisors (Board) appointed Dr. 

Slaughter President of the Southern University System. In 2007, the Board and Dr. 

Slaughter entered into a two-year employment agreement whereby the parties agreed

that Dr. Slaughter would receive a base salary of $220, 000.00 per year and a salary

supplement of $200,000.00 per year. When Dr. Slaughter' s two-year contract

expired in 2009, he retired from state employment with approximately thirty-five

years of service. Thereafter, the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System

LASERS) began paying Dr. Slaughter a monthly retirement benefit of $24,487.95, 

2
which was calculated based upon Dr. Slaughter' s earnings as reported to LASERS

by the Board. 

Dr. Slaughter subsequently filed suit against the Board for past due wages, 

specifically contesting the Board' s calculation of terminal payments made to him. 

The trial court ruled that the Board miscalculated Dr. Slaughter' s income base by

including supplemental pay and expense allowances he received from the Board and

further found that the Board should have calculated Dr. Slaughter' s terminal pay and

retirement benefits based solely on his annual base salary. This court examined the

retirement statutes and La. Const. art. X, § 10(A)(1)( b) and found "[ f]rom our reading

ofthese particular retirement statutes, it is clear that the legislature did not intend for

supplemental pay or expense allowances to be included in the calculation of

compensation for employees who are not law enforcement officers or firefighters

and did not fall within the exception." Slaughter I, 10- 1049 at p. 25- 26, 76 So. 3d

at 454. After rejecting Dr. Slaughter' s remaining arguments, this court affirmed the

district court' s judgment, finding no error in the district court' s determination that

the salary supplement and expense allowances should not be used in the leave pay

calculation. Slaughter 1, 10- 1049 at p. 28, 76 So. 3d at 455. 1

As a result of the Slaughter I litigation, the Board became aware that it had

erroneously included supplemental funds in Dr. Slaughter' s earnings reported to

LASERS. As such, the Board sent a letter to LASERS on January 22, 2010, advising

LASERS of the error. When the Slaughter I decision became final, LASERS sent

correspondence to Dr. Slaughter advising that it intended to retroactively reduce his

retirement benefit starting June 1, 2012 due to an error made by the Board in the

reporting of his earnings. Relying on La. R. S. 11: 192, LASERS maintained that it

i While the district court ruled that supplemental pay and expense allowances should also not have

been included in the calculation of Dr. Slaughter' s retirement benefit, this court specifically noted

that the issue of the calculation of Dr. Slaughter' s retirement benefit was not before the court on

appeal. Slaughter 1, 10- 1049 at 24, 76 So. 3d at 453. 

3
may adjust benefits and further reduce the corrected benefit to recover

overpayments. 

Thereafter, Dr. Slaughter filed suit against LASERS seeking a writ of

mandamus, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment confirming LASERS has

no authority or ability to reduce his retirement benefits. Dr. Slaughter alleged that

his retirement benefits should be calculated based on the entirety of his earnings, 

including salary supplements. The district court denied Dr. Slaughter' s motion for

a writ of mandamus, mandatory injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment and

dismissed these claims against LASERS with prejudice. On appeal, this court

addressed the issue of whether " earned compensation" as defined in La. R.S. 

11: 403( 10) includes salary supplements. Relying on this court' s findings in our

previous opinion in Slaughter 1, this court found that the district court was correct in

concluding that " earned compensation" as defined in La. R.S. 11: 403( 10) does not

include Dr. Slaughter' s salary supplements. Slaughter II, 20- 0881 at p. 11, 322 So. 

3d at 847. 

On January 10, 2023, Dr. Slaughter filed the instant action naming as

defendants, LASERS and LASERS fiduciaries, including LASERS Board of

Trustees, its individual members, its Executive Director, Chief of Staff, Chief

Administrative Officer and Chief Investment Officer (Board of Trustee defendants). 

Dr. Slaughter also named generally the Clerks ofCourt ofall district courts, appellate

courts, and the supreme court in the State of Louisiana in their official capacity and

the Judicial Administrator of the Louisiana Supreme Court in her official capacity. 

Dr. Slaughter alleged that LASERS is improperly including supplemental pay as a

part ofthe earned compensation for judges, upon which their retirement benefits are

calculated, and that this practice violates La. Const. art. X, § 10(A)(1)( b). Dr. 

Slaughter alleged that this practice prevents the fund from being maintained on a

sound actuarial basis and results in the payment of smaller and less frequent cost of

4
living adjustments ( COLA) for LASERS members. Dr. Slaughter sought a

declaratory judgment that La. R.S. 13: 10. 3, 11: 1380, 11: 1352, 11: 558, 11: 558. 2, 

11: 560 and 11: 553, which relate to supplemental pay for judges and its inclusion in

calculating their retirement benefits, conflict with and violate La. Const. art. X, 

10( A)(1)( b), which limits the inclusion of supplemental pay in calculating

retirement benefits to law enforcement officers and firefighters as found by this court

in Slaughter II. Dr. Slaughter also sought a declaratory judgment that it is

unconstitutional for any LASERS members who are not law enforcement officers or

firefighters to have supplemental pay included in the calculation of their retirement

benefits. Dr. Slaughter sought to enjoin LASERS from continuing to deplete and

divert assets ofthe fund by overpaying judges or other LASERS members by means

of including supplemental pay in calculating their retirement benefits, in violation

of La. Const. art. X, § I O( A)(1)( b). 

Dr. Slaughter further alleged that, notwithstanding the unconstitutional nature

of La. R.S. 13: 10.3, the clerks of all the courts in the state collect fees for every civil

filing, to be used for an unconstitutional purpose, i.e., the payment of retirement

contributions on supplemental compensation paid to judges. As such, Dr. Slaughter

sought a declaratory judgment that the clerks of all district, appellate, and supreme

courts in the state of Louisiana are in violation of the Louisiana Constitution in

levying and collecting fees for every civil filing for the funding of the Judges' 

Supplemental Compensation Fund, which violates La. Const. art. X, § 10(A)( 1)( b). 

Dr. Slaughter further sought to enjoin the clerks of court from continuing to levy and

collect fees for every civil filing for funding the Judges' Supplemental

Compensation Fund. Finally, Dr. Slaughter sought damages to compensate him for

monies paid in court costs and filing fees that were improperly charged for funding

the Judges' Supplemental Compensation Fund. 

5
In addition to his individual claims, Dr. Slaughter also alleged two purported

class actions based on these same claims. 

Thereafter, Dr. Slaughter filed a motion to recuse the district court judge

assigned to the case alleging that all Louisiana judges have an interest in the

litigation' s outcome and there exists a substantial and objective basis that would

reasonably be expected to prevent the judge from conducting any aspect ofthe cause

in a fair and impartial manner because the case challenges the constitutionality of

judges' supplemental pay being included in the calculation of their retirement

benefit. 

On March 14, 2023, LASERS filed a peremptory exception raising the

objections of res judicata, no cause of action, and nonjoinder of indispensable

parties. Several LASERS Board of Trustee defendants, Charles Castile, Byron

Decoteau, Jr., Shannon S. Templet, Thomas C. Bickham, Barbara McManus, and

Ternisha Hutchinson ( collectively with LASERS the " LASERS defendants") 

subsequently filed their own peremptory exception raising the objections of res

judicata, no cause of action, and nonjoinder of indispensable parties, adopting and

incorporating by reference the arguments advanced by LASERS. 

Additionally, Sandra Vujnovich, the Judicial Administrator for the Louisiana

Supreme Court, Veronica O. Koclanes, Clerk of Court for the Louisiana Supreme

Court, and Rodd Naquin, Clerk of Court for the Louisiana First Circuit Court of

Appeal, filed a peremptory exception raising the objections of no cause of action, no

right of action, and lack of standing. 

Following a hearing on Dr. Slaughter' s motion to recuse and the defendants' 

peremptory exceptions, the district court signed a judgment denying Dr. Slaughter' s

motion to recuse, sustaining Ms. Vujnovich, Ms. Koclanes, and Mr. Naquin' s

exception raising the objections ofno cause of action and no right of action, denying

their exception raising the objection of lack of standing as moot, and dismissing Dr. 

9
Slaughter' s claims against these defendants with prejudice.' Dr. Slaughter now

appeals from the district court' s judgment. 

DISCUSSION

Motion to Recuse

In addition to appealing the portion of the district court' s judgment denying

his motion to recuse the district court judge assigned to the case, Dr. Slaughter also

filed multiple motions in this court to recuse not only the judges of this court, but

also several ad hoc judges appointed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to hear the

appeal ofthis matter. Recognizing the inability to resolve this matter through normal

procedures, the Louisiana Supreme Court elected to assume jurisdiction over the

recusal issue pursuant to its plenary authority under La. Const. art. V, §5( A), which

grants the court " general supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts." Slaughter

v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, 24- 00358, p. 2 ( La. 5/ 21/ 24), 385

So. 3d 2311 232. Dr. Slaughter responded by filing a motion to recuse the justices

of the Louisiana Supreme Court. After finding all of Dr. Slaughter' s motions to

recuse raise the same issues, the court considered the motions and denied all of Dr. 

Slaughter' s motions to recuse the judges of the district court, court of appeal, and

the supreme court under the Rule ofNecessity. Slaughter, 24- 00358 at pp. 3- 5, 385

So. 3d at 233- 234. 

Because the supreme court' s judgment ruled on all motions to recuse in this

matter, we find Dr. Slaughter' s arguments assigning error to the portion of the

district court' s judgment denying his motion to recuse the district court judge to be

moot. 

2 The district court signed a separate judgment sustaining the LASERS defendants' exceptions

raising the objection of res judicata, denying as moot their exceptions raising the objections of no

cause of action and failure to join indispensable parties, and dismissing Dr. Slaughter' s claims

against these defendants with prejudice. Dr. Slaughter has separately appealed this judgment in

Slaughter v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, 2023CA1168. 

7
Exceptions of No Cause of Action and No Right of Action

The objection that a petition fails to state a cause of action is properly raised

by the peremptory exception. La. C.C.P. art. 927(A)(5). The purpose of the

peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action is to test the legal

sufficiency ofthe pleading by determining whether the law extends a remedy against

the defendant to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. City Bar, Inc. 

v. Edwards, 21- 1437, p. 7 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 8/ 30/ 22), 349 So. 3d 22, 28. The focus

on an objection of no cause of action is whether the law provides a remedy against

a particular defendant. City Bar, Inc., 21- 1437 at p. 7, 349 So. 3d at 28. 

The burden of demonstrating that the petition fails to state a cause of action is

on the mover. Pierrotti v. Johnson, 11- 1317, p. 7 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 19/ 12), 91 So. 

3d 1056, 1062. The objection is triable on the face ofthe pleading, and for purpose

of determining the issues raised by the objection, the well -pleaded facts in the

petition must be accepted as true. City Bar, Inc., 21- 1437 at p. 7, 349 So. 3d at 28. 

Louisiana retains a system of fact pleading, and mere conclusions of the plaintiff, 

unsupported by facts, will not set forth a cause or right of action. Reynolds v. 

Bordelon, 14- 2362, p. 6 ( La. 6/ 30/ 15), 172 So. 3d 589, 595. Because the objection

of no cause of action raises a question of law, and the trial court' s decision is based

solely on the sufficiency ofthe petition, appellate review ofthe district court' s ruling

on an exception raising the objection of no cause of action is de nova. Reynolds, 

14- 2362 at p. 6, 172 So. 3d at 595. 

The function of an objection of no right of action is to determine whether the

plaintiff belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action

asserted. Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corporation, 10- 2267, 10- 

2272, 10- 2275, 10- 2279, 10- 2289, p. 6 ( La. 10/ 25/ 11), 79 So. 3d 246, 255. The

objection assumes that the cause of action asserted is valid and tests whether the

plaintiff has an interest in judicially enforcing it. The question is simply whether the

9
plaintiff has a right to sue the defendant to enforce the claim. St. Cyr v. St. Cy, 16- 

0896, p. 2 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/21/ 17), 215 So. 3d 283, 285, writ denied, 17- 0511

La. 3/ 31/ 17), 217 So. 3d 357. The party raising the objection of no right of action

bears the burden of proof. Pearce v. Lagarde, 20- 1224, p. 10 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 

10/ 7/ 21), 330 So. 3d 1160, 1167, writ denied, 22- 00010 ( La. 2/22/ 22), 333 So. 3d

446. To prevail on a peremptory exception pleading the objection of no right of

action, the defendant must show that the plaintiff does not have an interest in the

subject matter of the suit or the legal capacity to proceed with the suit. Pearce, 20- 

1224 at p. 10, 330 So. 3d at 1167. Evidence supporting or controverting an exception

raising the objection of no right of action is admissible; however, in the absence of

evidence to the contrary, the averments of fact in the pleadings will be taken as true. 

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Boohaker, 14- 0594, p. 6 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 

11/ 20/ 14), 168 So. 3d 421, 426. Whether a plaintiff has a right of action is also a

question of law and is reviewed on appeal de novo. Eagle Pipe and Supply, 10- 2267

at p. 7, 79 So. 3d at 256. Where doubt exists as to the appropriateness ofan exception

raising the objection of no right of action, this court must resolve that doubt in favor

of finding a right of action. George v. Terry, 23- 0582, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 

11/ 3/ 23), 378 So. 3d 111, 116. 

In the instant action, Dr. Slaughter sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, 

and damages against the clerks of court for all Louisiana district courts, appellate

courts, and the supreme court based upon their collection of fees for every civil filing

to be used for the Judges' Supplemental Compensation Fund. In particular, Dr. 

Slaughter sought a declaratory judgment that these clerks of court are in violation of

the Louisiana Constitution by levying and collecting fees for every civil filing to

fund the Judges' Supplemental Compensation Fund pursuant to La. R.S. 13: 10. 3, 

which he alleges violates La. Const. art. X, § 10(A)( 1)( b), and further sought to

enjoin these clerks of court from continuing to levy and collect these fees. 
A reading of Dr. Slaughter' s pro se petition reveals that he clearly seeks a

judgment declaring that La. R.S. 13: 10. 3, and other statutes related to the Judges' 

Supplemental Compensation Fund, are unconstitutional because they conflict with

and violate La. Const. art. X, § 10( A)(1)( b), which this court has found limits the

inclusion of supplemental pay in the calculation of compensation for only law

enforcement officers or firefighters. Dr. Slaughter stated this claim for relief in his

petition with respect to the LASERS defendants, and the basis of his claim against

the clerk of court defendants is his allegation that La. R.S. 13: 10. 3 is

unconstitutional. 

Courts have recognized that a declaratory judgment is an appropriate process

to assess the constitutionality of a statute. See Westlawn Cemeteries, L.L.C. v. 

Louisiana Cemetery Board, 21- 01414, p. 11 ( La. 3/ 25/ 22), 339 So. 3d 548, 558. 

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1872 designates who can bring an action

for declaratory judgment: 

A person ... whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by

a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have

determined any question of construction or validity arising under the

instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and obtain a

declaration ofrights, status, or other legal relations thereunder. 

Furthermore, there must exist a concrete, justiciable controversy, which in the

context of a declaratory judgment, connotes an existing actual and substantial

dispute, as distinguished from one that is merely hypothetical or abstract, and a

dispute which involves the legal relations ofparties with real adverse interests, upon

which the judgment of the court may effectively operate through a decree of

conclusive character. Abbott v. Parker, 259 La. 279, 249 So. 2d 908, 918 ( 1971). 

The petitioner must have a legally protectable and tangible interest in the suit, and

the dispute presented should be of sufficient immediacy and reality in order to

warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. Abbott, 249 So. 2d at 918. The

justiciable controversy requirement is related to the objections of no right of action

Wo
and no cause of action, insofar as there is no right of action or cause of action when

there is no justiciable controversy. Molinere v. Lapeyrouse, 16- 0991, p. 9 (La. App. 

1st Cir. 2/ 17/ 17), 214 So. 3d 887, 893. 

Dr. Slaughter, in seeking a declaratory judgment against these defendants, has

not set forth facts in his petition establishing a protectable interest in having La. R.S. 

13: 10. 3 declared unconstitutional. As recognized by Dr. Slaughter in his petition, 

La. R.S. 13: 10. 3 creates the Judges' Supplemental Compensation Fund and finances

the fund by levying a fee for every civil filing in the office of each clerk of city, 

parish, juvenile, family, district, appellate, and supreme court. The clerks of these

courts, as also recognized by Dr. Slaughter, collect these fees. However, Dr. 

Slaughter has not alleged how the collection of these fees pursuant to La. R.S. 

13: 10.3 creates a justiciable controversy between him and the clerk of court

defendants. Furthermore, although Dr. Slaughter names the judicial administrator

for the supreme court as a defendant, he has not alleged any action on the part ofthe

judicial administrator establishing a justiciable controversy nor has he sought

specific relief against her in his petition. Accordingly, because Dr. Slaughter has

failed to set forth facts establishing a justiciable controversy as to these particular

defendants, we find his petition fails to set forth a right of action or a cause of action

against them.3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the portion of the district court' s

judgment sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objections of no cause of

3 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 934 provides, "[ w]hen the grounds of the objection

pleaded by the peremptory exception may be removed by amendment ofthe petition, the judgment

sustaining the exception shall order such amendment within the delay allowed by the court." Dr. 

Slaughter did not request the opportunity to amend his petition in the district court nor has he

assigned any error to the district court' s failure to allow him an opportunity to amend on appeal. 

As such, we find this issue to be waived. See Honeybee Holdings, LLC v. St. Tammany Parish

Zoning Commission, 23- 1051, p. 9 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 31/ 24), _ So. 3d _, Martin v. Board

of Adjustment, Through Chairman, 23- 0658, p. 8 n.9 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 23/ 24), 387 So. 3d 17, 

22 n.9; Stolzle v. Clayton, 18- 1641, p. 6 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 7/ 11/ 19), 280 So. 3d 1240, 1244, writ

denied, 19- 01745 ( La. 1/ 14/ 20), 291 So. 3d 679. 

11
action and no right of action and dismissing Dr. Slaughter' s claims against Sandra

Vujnovich, the Judicial Administrator for the Louisiana Supreme Court; Veronica

4. Koclanes, Clerk of Court for the Louisiana Supreme Court; and Rodd Naquin, 

Clerk of Court for the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal. All costs of this

appeal are assessed to Dr. Ralph Slaughter. 

AFFIRMED. 

12