Case Name: Honorable Charles A. IMBORNONE v. Honorable Thomas A. EARLY, Jr. et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1981-04-06
Citations: 401 So. 2d 953
Docket Number: No. 81-CA-0388
Parties: Honorable Charles A. IMBORNONE v. Honorable Thomas A. EARLY, Jr. et al.
Judges: DENNIS, J., dissents with reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 401
Pages: 953–961

Head Matter:
Honorable Charles A. IMBORNONE v. Honorable Thomas A. EARLY, Jr. et al.
No. 81-CA-0388.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
April 6, 1981.
Dissenting Opinion April 28, 1981.
On Rehearing April 30, 1981.
John T. McCann, Peter A. Winkler, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Kendall L. Vick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul A. Eckert, Staff Atty., New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Opinion:
LEMMON, Justice.
This is a suit by Charles Imbornone, the newly elected Judge of Section "A", First City Court of the City of New Orleans, to enjoin the Judges of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, and the City from taking over the courtroom and chambers used by Section "A" and assigning the use of that space to a judge of the Civil District Court. The trial court, after a hearing, denied injunctive relief and dismissed the suit. Judge Imbornone appealed.
I.
The Civil Courts Building was constructed by and has been maintained by the City of New Orleans. Initially allotted to the First City Court was a portion of the second floor of the building, consisting of three courtrooms with adjoining chambers and offices, the office of the clerk of court, and the office of the constable. At the present time there are still three judges of the First City Court, and prior to the events at issue in these proceedings each of the judges occupied one of the courtrooms and adjoining chambers.
The third and fourth floors were initially allotted to the Civil District Court, with courtrooms and chambers for each of the eight judges on the third floor. A total of four additional judges have since been added to the court, and libraries and offices have been converted into makeshift courtrooms. Furthermore, the recent significant increase in jury trials has made the overcrowding problem intolerable.
For several years the Judges and the Mayor have discussed various solutions to the problem, such as an addition to the building, the construction or renovation of other buildings, the moving of one or more courts, or a combination of these proposals. Every proposal was frustrated because of the City's lack of necessary finances.
Finally, Mayor Morial responded to a request from the Judges of the Civil District Court by offering to authorize them to allot space in the Civil Courts Building. On November 19, 1980, the City's Chief Administrative Officer, acting upon written instructions from the Mayor, wrote a letter authorizing those judges "to assume full responsibility for determining the most effective utilization of the space assigned to courts and offices under the jurisdiction of the Civil District Court Judicial Expense Fund". The City also indicated its intention to retain responsibility for maintaining the building.
Pursuant to that authority the Judges of the Civil District Court, acting en banc, assigned the space on the second floor formerly occupied by Section "A" to Judge Ortigue's use and assigned the space on the third floor formerly occupied by Judge Ortigue to the use of Section "A". This suit followed to enjoin enforcement of that order.
II.
Defendants' exception to the jurisdiction over the subject matter, asserting that jurisdiction vested in the Judiciary Commission, was properly overruled by the trial court. The Judiciary Commission has the power and authority to investigate misconduct by judges and to recommend the discipline or removal of judges. Since no such misconduct was involved in this case, the district court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action for injunctive relief.
The trial court also properly overruled defendants' exception of no cause of action based on judicial immunity from suit. The traditional immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed in exercise of their jurisdiction has no application to a contest questioning judges' administrative action in allocating space among judges for the exercise of judicial functions.
III.
The critical issue is the legality of the order issued by the Judges en banc.
R.S. 33:4714 A requires the City to provide suitable courtrooms, offices and furnishings for the various courts in Orleans Parish. The executive and administrative powers of the City are vested in the Executive Branch, of which the Mayor is the chief executive officer. Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans, Art. IV, § 4-101, 4-206. Furthermore, the Department of Property Management (in the Executive Branch) has the responsibility for performing custodial functions and assigning space in buildings owned and operated by the City for a public purpose. Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans, Art. V, § 4-1401.
The judges of the courts of Orleans Parish arguably could require the City to furnish suitable courtrooms and offices necessary for the operation of the judicial branch. Furthermore, the judges of the civil courts or Orleans Parish arguably have the inherent power to assume responsibility for the suitable utilization of space within the Civil Courts Building until additional space is provided by the City.
Here, some of the civil judges requested the City's chief executive officer to furnish suitable accommodations, since their present accommodations are not suitable, and the Mayor responded by delegating to those judges (who constitute a majority of the civil judges in the parish), as a measure of interim relief, whatever authority he had to allocate presently available space. The delegation to those judges of any authority the Mayor had to allot space for judicial use does not violate the principle of separation of powers. We therefore conclude that the en banc order of the 12 Judges of the Civil District Court was valid, whether issued under the inherent power of the courts or under the properly delegated authority from the Mayor.
A related issue is whether the Judges of the Civil District Court exercised their authority arbitrarily or capriciously.
Two of the Judges of the First City Court testified as to their own overcrowding problems, which had been compounded by the addition of three arbitrators of small claims. They described the problem of confusion among unrepresented litigants appearing in great numbers and predicted a proliferation of the disorder if one of three sections is moved to another floor.
The trial judge recognized "considerable merit in petitioner^ assertions". Nevertheless, the trial judge found "sufficient justification" to support a conclusion that the action taken was not arbitrary. We agree, noting that while other equally reasonable actions may have been taken, the action that was taken cannot reasonably be classified as arbitrary.
IV.
The final issue is whether the disputed order was adopted at a meeting held in violation of R.S. 42:4.1 et seq., providing for open meetings of public bodies.
The Judges of the Civil District Court did allow other judges in the Civil Courts Building to appear at the en banc meeting and present their views, but the portion of the meeting at which the vote was taken was not open to the public. Thus, the threshold question is whether R.S. 42:4.1 et seq. was applicable.
R.S. 42:4.2 provides in pertinent part: "(1) 'Meeting' means the convening of a quorum of a public body to deliberate or act on a matter over which the public body as an entity has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.
"(2) 'Public body' means village, town, and city governing authorities; parish governing authorities; school boards, and boards of levee and port commissioners; boards of publicly operated utilities; planning, zoning, and airport commis sions; and any other state, parish, municipal, or special district boards, commissions, or authorities, and those of any political subdivision thereof, where such body possesses policy making, advisory, or administrative functions, including. any committee or subcommittee of any of these bodies enumerated in this Paragraph. 'Public body' shall not include the legislature."
It is evident from a review of the above statute and of R.S. 42:4.1, which states the purpose of the requirement of open meetings, that the law is not intended to apply to the judiciary. This reasoning applies even when judges are acting in the performance of their rule making or administrative functions.
We therefore conclude that the Legislature did not intend R.S. 42:4.1 through 42:12 to apply to actions of members of the judiciary in the appropriate exercise of their judicial function. The allocation of court space, whether under the delegated authority of the executive branch to solve current overcrowding problems or under the court's inherent power, is an appropriate exercise of judicial function. It is therefore unnecessary to reach the issue of the constitutionality of these statutes.
The judgment of the trial court is amended to delete any reference to the constitutionality of R.S. 42:1 et seq. As amended, the judgment is affirmed.
DENNIS, J., dissents with reasons.
. The trial judge, specially assigned to hear the case, also declared unconstitutional "any prospective application of the Public Meetings Law (R.S. 42:1 et seq.) to the judiciary of this state". The State of Louisiana and the Judges of the Civil District Court filed a direct appeal to this court pursuant to La.Const. 1974, Art. V, § 5(D). Judge Imbornone then also appealed.
. The remainder of the second floor was occupied by the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. The Juvenile Court occupied the first floor of the four-story building.
. At trial Judge Ortigue, whose courtroom has no jury box and no room for a 12-member jury, testified that he was then in a jury trial that was in its third day. He had been required to borrow a different courtroom for each of the three days of the trial, and he described the confusion and extreme delays caused by the problem.
There are no jury trials in the First City Court.
.The judges, in testimony at trial, characterized the order as the most efficient and immediately available interim solution to the space problem.
. R.S. 33:4714 A provides:
"A. The city of New Orleans shall provide suitable courtrooms and offices to the various courts of the Parish of Orleans, the criminal and civil sheriffs, the recorder of mortgages and register of conveyances, and the clerks and constables of the city courts."
Furthermore, R.S. 33:4714 C provides:
"C. Courts and officers with judicial expense funds are hereby authorized to assist the city of New Orleans with the repair, renovation or construction of suitable courtrooms and quarters for the proper operation of their respective courts in Orleans Parish."
. R.S. 42:4.1 provides:
"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. Toward this end, the provisions of R.S. 42:4.1 through R.S. 42:10 shall be construed liberally."