City of Baton Rouge v. Donahue
| Docket Number | 2023 CA 0319 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 2023 |
| Parties | CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE v. TERRENCE JOSEPH DONAHUE AND PATRICIA O'NEAL DONAHUE |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
1
CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
v.
TERRENCE JOSEPH DONAHUE AND PATRICIA O'NEAL DONAHUE
No. 2023 CA 0319
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit
December 27, 2023
On Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No. 712112 Honorable Richard "Chip" Moore, Judge Presiding
David M. Lefeve
James L. Hilburn
Leo J. D'Aubin
William R. Aaron, II
Deborah A. Berthelot
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for Plaintiffs/ Appellants
City of Baton Rouge and
Parish of East Baton Rouge
Terrence J. Donahue, Jr.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
Terrence Joseph Donahue and
Patricia O' Neal Donahue
BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.
McClendon, J.
In connection with the dismissal of the plaintiffs' expropriation proceeding, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiffs appeal. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 8, 2021, the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish of East Baton Rouge (the City-Parish), plaintiffs-appellants herein, filed a petition seeking to expropriate a piece of immovable property pursuant to LSA-R.S. 48:441, et seq. (quick taking statutes). The property at issue was designated as "Parcel 7-4" and belonged to Terrence Joseph Donahue and Patricia O'Neal Donahue (the landowners), defendants-appellees herein. The trial court executed an order of expropriation on October 21, 2021. The landowners opposed the expropriation. Extensive and contentious litigation followed.
Pertinent to the events leading to this appeal, the City-Parish filed an amending and supplemental petition (first amended petition), together with an order seeking leave of court to file the amended petition and an amended order of expropriation. In opposition, the landowners filed a motion to consolidate, a motion to dismiss, a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, and a dilatory exception raising the objection of vagueness, all of which the trial court set for hearing on June 20, 2022.
During the June 20, 2022 hearing, the trial court orally dismissed the expropriation proceedings. However, the oral dismissal was not immediately reduced to a written final judgment. In the interim, after the oral dismissal and before the execution of a written judgment in conformity therewith, the City-Parish sought and received leave of court to file an October 10, 2022 pleading captioned "Amending Petition" (second amended petition).
On November 15, 2022, the landowners filed a motion to vacate the trial court's order granting leave of court for the City-Parish to file the second amended petition and a motion to strike the second amended petition (motion to vacate and motion to strike the second amended petition). The landowners maintained that after the City-Parish's
expropriation suit was orally dismissed, the City-Parish was required to seek relief via a motion for new trial or an appeal.
While the landowners' motion to vacate and motion to strike the second amended petition were pending, the landowners filed a motion requesting that the trial court enter a final judgment dismissing the City-Parish's expropriation suit, in accordance with the trial court's June 20, 2022 oral ruling (motion for entry of final judgment); tax the City Parish with $4,347.40 in costs accrued in connection with the unsuccessful expropriation suit (motion to tax costs); and tax the City-Parish with $190,080.00 in attorney's fees accrued in connection with the unsuccessful expropriation suit (motion to tax attorney's fees). The memorandum and appended exhibits filed with the motions reflected that counsel for the landowners, Terrence J. Donahue, Jr. (Attorney Donahue), was the landowners' son, and that he was also representing his grandmother, Virginia O'Neal, in a related case in which the City-Parish was attempting to expropriate property referred to as Parcel 7-6. The memorandum acknowledged that some of the costs and fees accrued in defending the two expropriation suits inured to the benefit of both suits; distinguished between the costs and fees accrued to the benefit of the instant suit only and those accrued to the benefit of both suits; and requested an award of costs and attorney's fees consistent therewith, by seeking full reimbursement of only those sums accrued to benefit the instant suit, and seeking an award of one-half of those sums accrued to benefit both suits. In support of the motion for costs and attorney's fees, the landowners offered an October 1, 2014 letter sent on behalf of the City-Parish to the landowners, offering to purchase Parcel 7-4, which reflected the landowners' refusal of the offer; an October 1, 2014 letter sent on behalf of the City-Parish to Mrs. O'Neal, offering to purchase Parcel 7-6, which reflected Mrs. O'Neal's refusal of the offer; and Attorney Donahue's November 25, 2022 affidavit, in which he attested in detail to the work performed in connection with the instant matter and the costs incurred in connection therewith through November 15, 2022. The trial court set the landowners' motions for hearing on January 17, 2023.
On December 1, 2022, the City-Parish filed a motion and order seeking dismissal of their second amended petition without prejudice, with each party to bear their own
costs. The trial court executed the order on December 5, 2022. The landowners filed objections to the City-Parish's motion to dismiss on December 11, 2022. The landowners contended that, because they had already made an appearance in the suit, the City-Parish was not entitled to seek a dismissal without prejudice or to have costs assessed against both parties. Rather, according to the landowners, dismissal should be with prejudice and the City-Parish should bear all costs.
On January 12,2023, the landowners filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion to tax costs and attorney's fees. The landowners also attached the transcript of the June 20, 2022 hearing, as well as Attorney Donahue's January 12, 2023 affidavit attesting that an additional $9,689.97 in costs and attorney's fees had accrued since November 15, 2022.
On January 17, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on the landowners' motion to vacate and motion to strike the second amended petition, motion for entry of final judgment, motion to tax costs, and motion to tax attorney's fees. After finding that the landowners' motion to vacate and motion to strike the second amended petition were moot, the trial court took up the landowners' motion to tax costs and motion to tax attorney's fees. The landowners offered, filed, and introduced into evidence the exhibits attached to their motions and their reply memorandum. The landowners argued that the litigation had been pending for eight years and included almost one thousand emails, multiple items of formal correspondence, meetings, and conferences. Attorney Donahue stated that in his experience, the rate for handling expropriation matters generally ranged from $250.00 to $500.00 per hour, and his request was for $300.00 per hour.
Following the January 17, 2023 hearing, the trial court executed a written judgment on January 27, 2023,[1] which granted the landowners' motion for entry of final
judgment pursuant to the trial court's June 20, 2022 oral ruling dismissing the CityParish's expropriation suit. The January 27, 2023 judgment explicitly stated, in pertinent part:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that any rights of [the landowners] not adjudicated herein be and are hereby reserved for further proceedings not inconsistent with this judgment.
On January 31, 2023, the trial court executed a written judgment in conformity with its January 17, 2022 rulings. The January 31, 2023 judgment granted the landowners' motion to dismiss the expropriation suit, and entered final judgment dismissing the suit without prejudice; vacated the October 21, 2021 and April 25, 2022 order and amended order of expropriation; granted the landowners' motion to tax costs and attorney's fees, awarding costs in the amount of $3,000.00 and attorney's fees in the amount of $100,000.00; and "denied or overruled all other requests for relief."
The City-Parish filed a motion for devolutive appeal, specifying that they sought to appeal "the judgment rendered on [the landowners'] Motion to Tax Costs and Attorney Fees ONLY[,] rendered in open court on January [17, 2023]" and...
To continue reading
Request your trial