Brantley v. City of Gretna
| Decision Date | 05 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-CA-574 |
| Parties | Michael BRANTLEY, Jr., et al. v. CITY OF GRETNA & Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, MICHAEL BRANTLEY, JR.; DEBRA BOUDREAUX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND, ROBERT BOUDREAUX; JUDITH TRAIGLE; CHARLES W. BRISON, JR.; PATRICIA CUNNINGHAM ; DELORES TORTORICH; TERENCE S. COOPER, SR.; AND ERIN STREVA Gordon L. James, Monroe, Robert M. Baldwin, Monroe, G. Adam Cossey, Monroe, Margaret H. Pruitt
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE-2ND APPELLANT, CITY OF GRETNA Leonard L. Levenson, New Orleans, Christian W. Helmke, New Orleans, Colleen B. Gannon, Donna R. Barrios, New Orleans, E. John Litchfield, New Orleans, Michael J. Marsiglia, New Orleans
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC. Nancy S. Degan, New Orleans, Kent A. Lambert, New Orleans, Leopoldo J. Yanez, New Orleans, Emily Olivier Kesler, New Orleans, Kim M. Boyle, New Orleans, Allen C. Miller, Sr., New Orleans
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Marc E. Johnson
Defendants, the City of Gretna ("Gretna") and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. ("Redflex") appeal the trial court's March 30, 2021 judgment granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel in their lawsuit challenging the legality of an Electronic Speed Enforcement Ordinance adopted by the Gretna City Counsel in 2008. For the following reasons, we find the elements necessary for class certification are present and we affirm the trial court's judgment certifying the class.
In April 2008, the city council of Gretna unanimously adopted Ordinance 3678. This Ordinance amended Chapter 90 of the City of Gretna's Code of Ordinances to add sections 505-511 in order to establish and authorize the use of a photographic vehicle speed enforcement system. The Ordinance provided that the Gretna Police Department ("Department") was responsible for its enforcement and administration, but that "the department may enforce and administer [the Ordinance] through one or more contractors." In this regard, the City of Gretna contracted with Redflex for the enforcement of the Ordinance, including the issuance of citations and collection of fees. The Ordinance, codified as Gretna City Ordinances 90-505 through 90-511, became effective on December 15, 2008, and thus began defendants’ operation of Gretna's Electronic Photo Enforcement Program (the "Program").1
Pursuant to the Program, Redflex places mobile, photograph speed enforcement equipment (including radar, cameras, and a computer system) on the side of public roadways located within the city limits of Gretna, Louisiana, which roadways include, but are not limited to, Lafayette Street, Westbank Expressway, Gretna Boulevard, LaPalco Boulevard, Franklin Avenue, and Whitney Avenue.2 If the computer system records a vehicle traveling in excess of the posted speed limit, it takes a short video and photographs the vehicle. That information is then uploaded and transmitted to Redflex's processing center in Phoenix, Arizona, via internet transmission. Using the license plate captured by the camera, Redflex then gathers information concerning the vehicle and its registered owner through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System ("NLETS"), and Redflex's computer system then auto-fills a citation form with the violation information. That citation is uploaded into Redflex's proprietary "SuperScreen" software system, which contains a photographic image of the vehicle captured by the cameras, the license plate, and the name of the registered owner. Once the citation is reviewed by a Gretna Police Department employee, and it is determined that a violation has occurred, Redflex is then authorized to issue a Notice of Violation ("NOV")3 to the vehicle's registered owner, which includes the electronic signature and badge number of the city's designated officer.4
Civil penalties are assessed based upon the vehicle's speed as recorded by the radar equipment, and payment of the stated fine is due to the City of Gretna within thirty days. Regardless of the person actually operating the vehicle and committing the violation, the Ordinance imposes liability on the registered owner. The Ordinance does provide, however, that the owner may shift liability to the operator.
The Ordinance provides that a citation recipient may request an administrative adjudication hearing, and states, "the decision of the hearing officer shall be the final decision by city government." If the hearing officer determines the cited vehicle owner is liable, the owner is assessed an additional $30.00 for requesting the hearing. Additionally, the Ordinance provides that a person or persons aggrieved by a hearing officer's decision may file a petition for judicial review to the Mayor's Court of the City of Gretna within thirty days of the entry of decision. Once a decision by the Mayor's Court is issued, the aggrieved person may pursue supervisory review and/or appellate review as provided by Louisiana law.
In 2016, the City of Gretna adopted a revised Code of Ordinances and Ordinance 90-505 through 90-511 was re-enacted as Ordinance 52-365 through 52-371. While the numbers associated with the Ordinance changed, its substance remained the same.
In April 2016, plaintiffs filed a class action petition against Gretna and Redflex, seeking damages (i.e. , a refund of all fines pursuant to La. C.C. art. 22995 ); a declaratory judgment finding that Gretna Ordinance 52-365 et seq . (formerly Gretna Ordinance 90-505), which created the Electronic Photo Enforcement Program, was "unlawful" as an ultra vires act and, therefore, void ab initio ; and, injunctive relief prohibiting continued operation of the Program.6 Plaintiffs filed their first amended class action petition in July 2016, adding additional plaintiffs/class representatives and reiterating the same allegations and claims.7 In May 2020, plaintiffs filed their second amended petition, and within fourteen days of service thereof, on May 29, 2020, filed a motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. Defendants, Gretna and Redflex, opposed class certification on various grounds.
At the close of the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, the trial court granted class certification. The trial court concluded the common question is whether defendants’ administrative imposition of fines for moving violations in the City of Gretna is in violation of a prohibitory law and an ultra vires act done without authority. It also found the evidence showed: (1) the class of individuals is so numerous that joinder is impracticable, (2) the issue is common to the class, (3) the claims of the representatives appointed are typical of the claims of the class, and (4) the named representatives adequately represent the class. Finding the class action procedure superior to any other available method for resolving the single, paramount issue concerning the Program, the trial court reasoned it would be imprudent to try the cases individually as they may result in incompatible judgments, and class action is appropriate due to the possibility that many of the claims made by the class members may be small or nominal in nature.
Accordingly, the trial court certified the following class:
All persons who received Notice of Violation from the Gretna Traffic Enforcement Program, as set forth in Gretna Ordinance 31678, originally codified as Ord. 90-505 through 90-511 and re-enacted as Ord. 52-365 through 53-371, and who subsequently paid any fine, fee, civil penalty, costs or other payments in full or partial satisfaction of the Notice of Violation.
Essentially, the proposed class will consist of all persons who both received an NOV and subsequently paid, either partially or in full, in satisfaction of the NOV. Thus, if you received an NOV, but did not pay it, you are not in the class. If you did not receive an NOV, but merely paid on behalf of someone else that did, you are not a member of the class.
The court appointed the following as class representatives: Michael Brantley, Jr.; Deborah Boudreaux, individually, and on behalf of her late husband, Robert Boudreaux; Judith Traigle; Charles W. Birson, Jr.; Patricia Cunningham; Delores Tortorich; Terence S. Cooper, Sr.; and Erin Streva. The court further appointed Gordon L. James, Robert M. Baldwin, G. Adam Cossey, and Margaret H. Pruit as counsel for the class.
Gretna and Reflex timely appealed the trial court's judgment.
On appeal, Gretna alleges the following assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in determining that plaintiffs carried their burden of proof under La. C.C.P. art. 591(A) for class certification; (2) the trial court erred in failing to perform the requisite rigorous analysis and erred as a matter of law in holding that plaintiffs satisfied their burden of proof under La. C.C.P. art. 591(B)(3) ; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to reach the issue (deemed moot after certifying the class under La. C.C.P. art. 591(B)(3) ), and holding that La. C.C.P. arts. 591(B)(1) and 591(B)(2) are inapplicable to this case, and cannot be satisfied on the face of plaintiffs’ pleadings or the record in this case. Redflex also appeals alleging the trial court erred in using the wrong legal standard in certifying plaintiffs’ proposed class, and in finding that plaintiffs carried their burden of proof.
The standard of review for a trial court's ruling on a motion for class certification is tri-parte. Factual findings are subject to the manifest error standard of review. Brooks v. Union Pacific R. Co. , 08-2035 (La. 5/22/09), 13 So.3d 546, 554. A trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether to...
To continue reading
Request your trial