Court Opinion

ID: 9388053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 18:04:46.597574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:17.198612
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

              COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DONOVAN       FREMIN,             STAN                                                         NO.        2023 CW         0199
GUIDROZ,        WILLIAM            EDWIN
JUDSON,       JR.,       LUKE       LABRUZZO,
JR.,    RAWLSTON          PHILLIPS,            III,
AND     SALVADOR         P.       TANTILLO,
III

VERSUS

BOYD RACING,             LLC,       CHURCHILL
DOWNS     LOUISIANA HORSERACING
COMPANY,        LLC,      LOUISIANA
DOWNS     INVESTMENT               COMPANY,
LLC,    AND     OLD      EVANGELINE                                                            APRIL            19,       2023
DOWN,     LLC

In Re:           Churchill                  Downs        Louisiana             Horseracing                Company,             LLC,
                 applying               for    supervisory writs,                        19th       Judicial          District
                 Court,            Parish of East Baton Rouge,                             No.       725,007.

BEFORE:          HOLDRIDGE,                 HESTER,       AND       GREENE,         JJ.

        WRIT DENIED.

                                                               CHH
                                                               HG

         Holdridge,               J.    concurs,          but       notes         that         it    is    well           settled
that     a    court       may       not       declare          a    statute         unconstitutional                      in      the
context        of    a    summary proceeding                       such      as     a    preliminary             injunction
hearing.        Barber             v.       Louisiana              Workforce             Commission,                 2015-1700
 La .    1 0 / 9 / 15 ) ,     17 6      So . 3d     3 98 (     per      curi am) .        The        only       is sue       to    be
considered           at       a    hearing          on    a    preliminary               injunction              is       whether
the     moving           party         has     met       its       burden         of     proving           that        it      will
suffer        irreparable               injury,          loss,       or    damage         if        the    injunction              is
not     issued,          that      it    is    entitled to              the       relief        sought          as    a   matter
of     law,     and       that         it     will       likely         prevail          on     the       merits          of      the
case.     General Motors Acceptance                                Corp.       v.       Daniels,          377    So.2d         346,
348 (    La.     1979).           Without         agreement             by     the       parties          on     the       record
to    try the        petition            for      declaratory relief                      at    the       hearing         on the
preliminary              injunction,                the       issue       of      the     constitutionality                        of
the     act     in       question             will       not       be     ripe      for        determination                 at     a
hearing        for       preliminary              injunction.             See Women' s               Health          Clinic v.
State,         2001-2645 (               La.        11/9/01),              804          So.2d         625,           626 (        per
curiam)        citing Kruger                   v.        Garden           Dist.          Ass' n,           99-3344 (              La.
3/24/00),        756 So.2d 309,                   310-11 ( per curiam).

COURT     OF APPEAL,               FIRST CIRCUIT

        DEPUTY      CLERK OF             COURT
               FOR THE            COURT