Opinion ID: 1746059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Divestiture of District Court's Original Jurisdiction

Text: In its motion attacking the constitutionality of Act 312, M.J. Farms argues the act divests the district court of its original jurisdiction. We disagree. La. Const. art. V, § 16, in pertinent part, provides: (A) Original Jurisdiction. (1) Except as otherwise authorized by this constitution or except as heretofore or hereafter provided by law for administrative agency determinations in worker's compensation matters, a district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil and criminal matters. We discussed La. Const. art. V, § 16 at some length in Pope v. State, 99-2559 (La.6/29/01), 792 So.2d 713. There, this Court made the determination that the administrative procedure adopted in La. Rev.Stat. § 15:1711 allowed Department of Correction officials to recognize claims at the inception of the action. Id., 792 So.2d at 718. In finding CARP impermissibly intruded upon the original jurisdiction of the district court, we found our State Constitution was violated because CARP provided administrative procedures as the exclusive remedy available to offenders for complaints or grievances governed thereby insofar as federal law allows, and further prohibited a state court from entertaining any complaint or grievance unless the offender first exhausted his remedy under the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (CARP). At the basis of that conclusion, we stated that [o]riginal jurisdiction is `[j]urisdiction in the first instance' or [j]urisdiction to take cognizance of a cause at its inception, try it, and pass judgment upon the law and facts'. Accordingly, we held CARP, as amended in 1989, violated the constitutional provision which vested district courts with original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matter. Applying the rationale of Pope to the present case, we find Act 312 does not divest the district court of original jurisdiction. Unlike CARP, not only is the claim for environmental damages filed in the district court, the claim is not deferred to DNR until the district court determines environmental damage exists and further determines the legally responsible party. La.Rev.Stat. § 30:29(C)(1). Moreover, the district court is not required to adopt the plan approved by the administrative agency, and further retains jurisdiction to compare the various proposed plans, whether proposed by a party or the administrative agency, and determines which plan is a more feasible plan to adequately protect the environment and the public health, safety, and welfare. La.Rev.Stat. § 30:29(C)(5).