Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge
Decision Date | 25 May 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 14528,14528 |
Citation | 417 So.2d 1212 |
Parties | Ronald J. SPILLMAN, et al. v. The CITY OF BATON ROUGE. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
John L. Avant, Floyd J. Falcon, Jr., Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellees Ronald J. Spillman, et al.
L. Edwin Greer, and George W. Lang, II, Asst. City Attys., Shreveport, for amicus curiae City of Shreveport.
Charles M. Raymond, Lynn E. Williams, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant The City of Baton Rouge.
Camille F. Gravel, Jr. and Anna E. Dow, Baton Rouge, for amicus curiae AFL-CIO.
En Banc.
This is a class action brought on behalf of certain full-time and former firemen in Baton Rouge, seeking recalculation of accrued longevity pay and overtime and holiday pay earned during the two years preceding the filing of the suit, and payment of the amounts thereof allegedly due.
Plaintiffs allege that the City of Baton Rouge has refused to compute longevity pay as provided by R.S. 33:1992; has failed to give holiday pay as provided by R.S. 33:1999; and has failed to utilize state supplemental pay paid under R.S. 33:2001, et seq., and longevity pay under R.S. 33:1992 in computing overtime pay under R.S. 33:1994.
The City of Baton Rouge contends that it is not obliged to follow the above statutory provisions because of its "Home Rule Charter" and because of the provisions of Article VI, Section 6 of the Constitution of 1974, which provides:
"The legislature shall enact no law the effect of which changes or affects the structure and organization or the particular distribution and redistribution of the powers and functions of any local governmental subdivision which operates under a home rule charter."
Plaintiffs argue that Article VI, Section 6, supra, is modified by the provisions of Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution of 1974, which provides:
The City filed a peremptory exception of no cause of action which was overruled. By amended answer, the City pled peremptory exceptions of prescription and estoppel by laches, and asked for credit for amounts paid by it under its own longevity plan should R.S. 33:1992, and the other statutes involved herein, be found applicable.
After trial on the merits, the trial judge found the action to be a proper class action; that the City of Baton Rouge is subject to Article VI, Section 14, supra, and therefore has been subject to the provisions of R.S. 33:1992, 1994 and 1999 since the adoption of the Constitution of 1974, as of January 1, 1975; that all claims for benefits which accrued more than one year prior to filing the suit had prescribed; that firemen were due extra compensation for overtime and holiday pay; that state supplemental pay and longevity pay should be included in the base for computation of overtime and holiday pay; and awarded amounts due as a result of the above findings. The plea of estoppel by laches was denied.
The City has appealed from the judgments below, assigning as error the holdings of the trial court that R.S. 33:1992, 1994 and 1999 are applicable to Baton Rouge; that the principle of estoppel by laches is not applicable; and that the instant suit is a true class action.
We shall consider the assignments of error in inverse order. Defendant argues that this suit does not meet the criteria for a class action. Articles 591 and 592 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide:
In Stevens v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund, 309 So.2d 144 (La.1975), the court elaborated on the above articles as follows:
"They show that, in sanctioning class actions, the legislature has imposed the following requirements: (1) a class so numerous that joinder is impractical; (2) the joinder as parties to the suit of one or more parties who are (a) members of the class, and (b) so situated as to provide adequate representation for absent members of the class; and (3) a 'common character' between the rights of the representatives of the class and the absent members of the class."
The court further stated that:
"Thus, that different recoveries are sought, based upon the same factual transaction and same legal relationship, was not intended to defeat a class action."
Defendant's main argument on this issue is that the members of the class lack a "common character" because the amount due to each member of the class would be different. This, of course, is not a basis for the rejection of a class action under the Stevens case, supra.
Defendant further argues that joinder of all members of the class is not impracticable, as evidenced by the fact that the original 28 plaintiffs grew to over 350 by joinder, making more than half of the class nominal plaintiffs. Defendant states in its brief that there are 561 members of the class, which indicates that there are over 200 members who are not parties to the suit. We do not find that defendant has shown that it would be practical to join this great a number of class members so as to defeat the class action.
We are of the opinion that the class action is particularly appropriate in a case of this kind, in which the class is large, the communality of interest is complete, and the recovery of each member of the class may be easily computed.
Defendant's next contention is that the trial judge erred in holding that estoppel by laches...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Osborne v. Stone
...834 (1938); State ex rel. Koehl v. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, 179 La. 117, 153 So. 533 (1934); Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge, 417 So.2d 1212 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982); Devillier v. City of Opelousas, 247 So.2d 412 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1971); and State ex rel. Wiltz v. Sewerage and ......
-
Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge
...not apply because the legislature had taken no action thereon after the adoption of the Constitution of 1974. Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge, 417 So.2d 1212 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982). We reversed the lower court despite Art. 6, § 14 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution which reads as "No law re......
-
Ruby v. City of Shreveport
...of Section 6 because adequate police and fire protection are matters of statewide concern. We are aware of Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge, 417 So.2d 1212 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982); and Tull v. City of Baton Rouge, 385 So.2d 343 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980), but conclude that these decisions are not......
- Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge