Court Opinion

ID: 9377005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 17:05:17.382915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:11.176653
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                            COURT OF APPEAL

                              FIRST CIRCUIT

   r

                              2022 CA 0730

                         CHARLES BRUMFIELD, JR.

                                  VERSUS

            THE VILLAGE OF TANGIPAHOA, RICKY COLEMAN,
                   DEBORAH CYPRIAN, AND SHELIA MARTIN

                                              Judgment Rendered:        MAR 0 6 2023

          On Appeal from the Twenty -First Judicial District Court
                     In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa
                              State of Louisiana
                         Docket No. 2019- 0002159
             Honorable Brenda Bedsole Ricks, Judge Presiding

Latvia Williams -Simon                    Counsel for Plaintiff/ Appellee
Vanessa R. Williams                       Charles Brumfield, Jr.
Amite, Louisiana

William D. Aaron, Jr.                    Counsel for Defend ant/ Appellant
DeWayne L. Williams                       DeWayne L. Williams
New Orleans, Louisiana

       BEFORE:      McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, 33.
McCLENDON, J.

        In this appeal arising out of a public records request, a former attorney for the

defendants appeals a trial court' s judgment that granted the plaintiffs motion for

contempt and assessed penalties against him.              For the following reasons, we reverse.

                             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        This appeal involves the trial court's granting of the motion for contempt and the

imposition of sanctions based on language used in an appellate brief. The appellate brief

was filed in this Court for a previous appeal addressing the public records request of the

plaintiff, Charles Brumfield, Jr.       A more detailed history of the factual and procedural

background of the underlying litigation can be found in Brumfield v. Village of

Tangipahoa, 2021- 0082 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 20/ 21), 340 So. 3d 221.

        As a brief background, in July of 2019, Mr. Brumfield submitted a public records

request to the Village of Tangipahoa, and to three of its aldermen, Ricky Coleman, Debrah

Cyprian, and Shelia Martin ( the defendants).'           Subsequently, Mr. Brumfield filed a petition

for a writ of mandamus against the defendants, alleging they had failed to timely respond

to his public records request.       He sought a judgment ordering the defendants to produce

the requested records,        awarding him damages, and assessing the defendants with

penalties, costs, and attorney fees. The trial court held a hearing, after which the trial

court ruled that Mr. Coleman, Ms. Cyprian, and Ms. Martin ( the Aldermen) failed to comply

with Mr. Brumfield' s public records request. The trial court awarded penalties, costs, and

attorney fees. Thereafter,        Mr.   Brumfield filed a motion to clarify and render a final

judgment, alleging that the Aldermen had still not complied with his public records

request.2 After a hearing on the motion, the trial court signed a judgment, assessing a

 14,000. 00 penalty against each of the Aldermen and ordering that the defendants were

solidarily liable for costs and $ 3, 500. 00 in attorney fees. Brumfield, 340 So. 3d at 224-

25.

1 The petition names " Deborah Cyprian" as a defendant. The correct spelling of Ms. Cyprian' s name is
 Debrah."

2 Although the trial court stated that it would sign a judgment conforming to its ruling, the record did not
contain such written judgment. Brumfield, 340 So. 3d at 225.

                                                     2
        After the trial court signed its judgment in the underlying litigation, Mr. Coleman,

Ms. Cyprian, and Ms. Martin ( the Aldermen) filed a motion for new trial, which was denied.

The Aldermen appealed.           On review, this Court held that the judgment as to Ms. Martin

was an absolute nullity as she was not served with notice of the court date. Brumfield,

340 So. 3d at 227, 233.         In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed.               Brumfield,

340 So. 3d at 233.

        Shortly after this Court' s opinion in the previous appeal, Mr. Brumfield filed a

Motion to Reset and for Contempt, on December 22, 2021, seeking to reset the motion

to clarify against Ms. Martin only and additionally seeking sanctions against the Aldermen

for statements contained in their appellate brief. Mr. Brumfield specifically alleged that

the Aldermen " lodged scandalous and frivolous accusations in their appellate brief" in

violation of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2- 12. 2C and LSA- C. C. P.

arts. 863 and 864. 3

        The trial court set the motions for February 22, 2022. 4 At the conclusion of the

hearing on Mr. Brumfield' s Motion for Contempt, the trial court granted the motion against

each of the defendant Alderman, as well as the Aldermen' s counsel, DeWayne Williams,

assessing penalties in the amount of $ 1, 500. 00 " to be split amongst the parties."                    After

the hearing, Mr. Williams requested written reasons for judgment, which the trial court

issued on March 18, 2022.             The trial court signed a judgment on April 27, 2022, in

conformity with its ruling, and Mr. Williams appealed. 5

                                              DISCUSSION

        In his appeal, Mr.        Williams asserts that the trial court erred in granting Mr.

Brumfield' s motion for contempt and request for sanctions against him for language in

3 Effective January 1, 2023, Rule 2- 12. 2C was redesignated Rule 2- 12. 28. The text of the subsection did
not change.

4 The trial court also set for hearing on February 22, 2022, Mr. Williams' Motion to Withdraw, which was
granted, and Mr. Brumfield' s Motion to Reset the Motion to Clarify Judgment as to Ms. Martin, which was
also granted.   Ms. Martin was assessed $ 14, 000. 00 in civil penalties and was held liable in solido with the
other defendants for court costs and attorney fees in the amount of $3, 500. 00.

s A judgment that imposes sanctions against a non- party is a final appealable judgment. See Moore v.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2020- 0942 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 25/ 21), 2021 WL 2102935, * 2
unpublished).

                                                       3
an appellate brief.         The Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal Rule 2- 12. 2C

provides:

                  The language used in the brief shall be courteous, free from vile,
         obscene,     obnoxious,     or   offensive    expressions,      and free from insulting,
         abusive, discourteous, or irrelevant matter or criticism of any person, class
         of persons or association of persons, or any court, or judge or other officer
         thereof, or of any institution. Any violation of this Subsection shall subject
         the author, or authors, of the brief to punishment for contempt of court,
         and to having such brief returned.

Mr. Williams also maintains that because this Court did not find the language in his

appellate brief to be contemptuous, nor was it returned, the trial court erred in

substituting its judgment for that of this Court.

        The questionable language in the appellate brief in the underlying matter asserts

that "[ t]his   case involves the unconscionable use of the courts to seek political retribution

against and punish political leaders for serving their community." Mr. Williams also stated

in the brief that the " most sacred concept of our judicial system is its independence.

Generally[,] our courts do not allow themselves to be used to punish political opponents."

Mr. Williams further set forth that the Aldermen were not represented by counsel at the

March 9, 2020 hearing and that the trial court " allowed the proceeding to go forward

anyway, but presumably[,] because the Aldermen did not have counsel, did not vet the

legitimacy of the defective public record requests."                     Mr. Williams also alleged that

 Appellee possibly committ[ ed] a misdemeanor crime during the hearing,"                             and that

 Appellee's malicious exuberance in trying to cast a false light on the Aldermen possibly

resulted in Appellee, and not the Aldermen, committing unethical and illegal conduct."

        The trial court determined that it had jurisdiction to hold counsel in contempt "for

malicious and scandalous accusations inserted into pleadings, in direct violation of Article

863" and granted Mr. Brumfield' s Motion for Contempt, imposing sanctions against Mr.

Williams personally. 6 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 863 provides:

        A. Every pleading of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by
        at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose physical
        address and email address for service of process shall be stated.                      A party
        who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading and state his

6 In its reasons, the trial court stated that the " First Circuit heard [ Mr. Brumfield`s] request for sanctions
and determined the matter would be properly before this [ c] ourt." However, in Brumfield, this Court
merely determined that Rule 1- 12. 20 " does not provide for the imposition of sanctions" and that "the ability
to impose sanctions under [ LSA-] C. C. P. art. 863 is limited to the trial court."   See Brumfield, 340 So. 3d
at 233. Therefore, this Court found that the request for sanctions was not properly before it. Id.

                                                        L9
       physical address and email address, if he has an email address, for service
       of process.      If mail is not received at the physical address for service of
       process, a designated mailing address shall also be provided.

       B. Pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit or certificate,
       except as otherwise provided by law, but the signature of an attorney or
       party shall constitute a certification by him that he has read the pleading,
       and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after
       reasonable inquiry, he certifies all of the following:

        1) The pleading is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as
       to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
       litigation.

        2) Each claim, defense, or other legal assertion in the pleading is warranted
       by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,
       modification, or reversal of existing law.
        3) Each allegation or other factual assertion in the pleading has evidentiary
       support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual assertion, is likely
       to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
       investigation or discovery.
        4) Each denial in the pleading of a factual assertion is warranted by the
       evidence or, for a specifically identified denial, is reasonably based on a lack
       of information or belief.

       C. If a pleading is not signed, it shall be stricken unless promptly signed
       after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader.

       D.    If, upon   motion of any party or upon its own motion, the court
       determines that a certification has been made in violation of the provisions
       of this Article, the court shall impose upon the person who made the
       certification or the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction
       which may include an order to pay to the other party the amount of the
       reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading,
       including reasonable attorney fees.

       E. A sanction authorized in Paragraph D shall be imposed only after a
       hearing at which any party or his counsel may present any evidence or
       argument relevant to the issue of imposition of the sanction.

       F. A sanction authorized in Paragraph D shall not be imposed with respect
       to an original petition which is filed within sixty days of an applicable
       prescriptive date and then voluntarily dismissed within ninety days after its
       filing or on the date of a hearing on the pleading, whichever is earlier.

       G. If the court imposes a sanction, it shall describe the conduct determined
       to constitute a violation of the provisions of this Article and explain the basis
       for the sanction imposed.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 864 also provides that "[       a] n attorney may be

subjected to appropriate disciplinary action for a wilful violation of any provision of Article

863, or for the insertion of scandalous or indecent matter in a pleading."

       Authority to punish for contempt of court falls within the inherent power of the

court to aid in the exercise of its jurisdiction and to enforce its lawful orders. Smith v.

Robertson, 2021- 0708 (       La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 3/ 22), 341 So. 3d 608, 612.    Proceedings for

                                                61
contempt must be strictly construed, and the policy of our law does not favor extending
their scope. Acadian Cypress &               Hardwoods, Inc. v. Stewart, 2012- 2002 ( La. App. 1

Cir. 9/ 3/ 13), 2013 WL 4746957, * 2.            The trial court is vested with great discretion in

determining whether a party should be held in contempt of court, and its decision will

only be reversed when the appellate court finds an abuse of that discretion.                       Greeson

v. USAA Life Insurance Company, 2016- 0667 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 22/ 16),                         209 So. 3d

1066, 1070.

        In Greenhill Nursing Home v. Ferguson, 2001- 459 ( La. App. 3 Cir. 10/ 3/ 01),

796 So. 2d 881, 883, writ denied, 2001- 2976 ( La. 1/ 25/ 02), 807 So. 2d 843, the appellee

sought sanctions under LSA-C. C. P. art. 863 for " misrepresentations included in appellant's

brief' to the third circuit. That court denied the sanctions, noting that LSA- C. C. P. art.

852 " defines pleadings as `petitions, exceptions, written motions, and answers."                    Id.;   see

also Bergeron v. Richardson, 2020- 01409 ( La. 6/ 30/ 21), 320 So. 3d 1109, 1111 n. 1

  Louisiana Code Civil Procedure article 852 defines "pleadings' as ` petitions, exceptions,

written motions, and answers." V

        We agree that pleadings under Article 863 do not include appellate briefs and that

sanctions under Article 863 and 864 are inapplicable to language contained in appellate

briefs. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion

for contempt for " accusations inserted into pleadings, in direct violation of Article 863."

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment that granted Mr. Brumfield' s Motion for

Contempt and assessed penalties against Mr. Williams in the amount of $ 1, 500. 00 to be

split amongst the parties.

                                              CONCLUSION

        For the above reasons, that part of the April 27, 2022 judgment, granting Mr.

Brumfield' s motion for contempt and assessing penalties, is reversed.                     All costs of this

appeal are assessed to Charles Brumfield, Jr.

        REVERSED.

  We note, however, that our brethren on the fourth circuit have decided differently, finding that, while
LSA-C. C. P. art. 863 applies only to " pleadings," it also applies to " motions and other papers" signed by an
attorney or litigant. See Banks v. Progressive Pafoverde Insurance Company, 2022- 0151 ( La. App.
4 Or. 9/ 30122), 350 So. 3d 952, 957 n. 5.