Alecia Richard Versus Kyle Bourgeois, Sr.

ALECIA RICHARD NO. 19-CA-494

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

KYLE BOURGEOIS, SR. COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 795-561, DIVISION "M"
HONORABLE HENRY G. SULLIVAN, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

March 18, 2020

MARC E. JOHNSON
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Marc E. Johnson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

VACATED AND REMANDED
MEJ
SMC
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
ALECIA RICHARD
Tracy G. Sheppard

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
KYLE BOURGEOIS, SR.
Christy M. Howley
M. Elizabeth Bowman

JOHNSON, J.

Appellant, Kyle Bourgeois Sr., alleges that the Twenty-Fourth Judicial

District Court committed error when it granted a permanent injunction in a

summary proceeding in favor of Alecia Richard, the aunt of his minor son, Kyle

Junior. Mrs. Richard filed a petition for an injunction against Mr. Bourgeois

pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 3601 on May 23, 2019. A

Temporary Restraining Order was issued. The trial court issued a permanent

injunction on June 12, 2019 after a hearing on the matter. For the following

reasons, we vacate the June 12, 2019 judgment and remand the matter for further

proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 23, 2019, Alecia Richard filed a Petition for Temporary Restraining

Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunction against Kyle Bourgeois on behalf of

herself, her minor son and her (alleged incompetent) father. The petition accused

Mr. Bourgeois of threatening Mrs. Richard with bodily harm or death, harassment,

being an uninvited presence at her home, and making telephone calls and sending

texts, emails or other electronic communications to Mrs. Richard. Mrs. Richard

averred that Mr. Bourgeois began texting her the day before she filed the petition,

against her express wishes, as she was watching Kyle Junior until his mother,

Marie Cusachs (Mrs. Richard’s sister) came home from work. A temporary

consent judgment in the custody case between Mr. Bourgeois and Ms. Cusachs

ordered that the parties, or their designated representatives, exchange physical

custody of Kyle Junior on the days specified in the order at the First District Police

Station at 4116 Hessmer Avenue in Metairie at 7:00 p.m.

The petition also alleges Mr. Bourgeois sent the police over to her home

looking for his son and that he has threatened to continue to do so. Mrs. Richard

19-CA-494 1

also alleges that Mr. Bourgeois sent her a text message that read, “I WILL

DESTROY YOU,” has attempted to run her father off of the road, and calls her

derogatory names when leaving the police station after picking up or dropping off

Kyle Junior. An order of protection, effective through May 30, 2019, was issued

that same day and a rule to show cause for order of protection/injunction was set

for the morning of May 30th.

On May 30, 2019, the order of protection was extended through June 12,

2019, and the rule to show cause was reset for that morning at 9:00 a.m., because

no service had been made on Mr. Bourgeois. Instructions were provided to serve

Mr. Bourgeois at the First District Police Station the next time he exchanged

custody of Kyle Junior with his mother or the Richards. Mr. Bourgeois was served

with the initial and subsequent orders on June 5, 2019.

On June 12, 2019 both Mrs. Richard and Mr. Bourgeois appeared pro se for

the hearing on the injunction. The parties and their spouses, Mr. Brandon Richard

and Mrs. April Bourgeois, testified. The parties admitted the following evidence:

copies of text messages they, or Mr. Bourgeois and Ms. Cusachs, exchanged,

monthly school calendars for the school where Kyle Junior attended kindergarten

last year, and one page of a temporary consent judgment in 24th Judicial District

Court Case No. 770-981, which ordered “[t]here shall be no ‘drama’ when the

parties exchange physical custody of Kyle Junior, or at any other time.”

Before ruling, the trial court advised both parties to focus on the well-being

of Kyle Junior. The judge advised Mrs. Richard that she should respond to Mr.

Bourgeois’ inquiries about Kyle Junior’s whereabouts. The judge also advised Mr.

Bourgeois to be respectful and civil when interacting with the Richards and to be

aware of negative effects the conflict among Mr. Bourgeois, Ms. Cusachs, and the

Richards could have on Kyle Junior. The court ordered the parties not to subject

the child or one another to derogatory language and not to harass or abuse one

19-CA-494 2

another, and court costs were to be split between the parties. While ruling, the

judge stated, “I'm not going to issue the Standard Uniform Abuse Prevention Order

that the State has and it gets filed with the State. It's going to be an Order of the

Court in the terms that I've just mentioned.” However, the trial court issued a

Standard Uniform Abuse Prevention Order as a permanent injunction, and the

terms referenced were issued in an addendum attached to the order on June 12,

2019.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

First, we address the contradiction between the oral judgment given in court

on June 12, 2019 and the subsequent issuance of a Uniform Abuse Prevention

Order in the matter on the same date. A trial judge may render a written judgment

that differs in substance from his or her prior oral statements. The oral statements

form no part of the judgment. The written judgment is the only ruling from which

an appeal may be taken.1 Bourgeois v. Bazil, 18-676 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/24/19); 271

So.3d 341, 348 (citations omitted). When there is a conflict between oral reasons

for judgment and a written judgment, the written judgment controls. Id. This is

true even when the trial court may have intended otherwise. Id. Accordingly, the

Uniform Abuse Prevention Order issued by the trial court is a valid judgment,

pending the instant appeal.

Under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 3601, “[a]n injunction shall

issue in cases where irreparable injury, loss or damage may otherwise result to the

applicant, or in other cases specifically provided by law.” Lassalle v. Daniels, 96–

176 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/96); 673 So.2d 704, 709, writ denied, 96–1463 (La.

9/20/96); 679 So.2d 435. An injunction is a harsh, drastic and extraordinary

remedy, and should only issue where the mover is threatened with irreparable loss

or injury without adequate remedy at law. Lafreniere Park Found. v. Friends of

1
See also Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure arts. 1911 and 1918.

19-CA-494 3

Lafreniere Park, Inc., 97–152 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/29/97); 698 So.2d 449, 452, writ

denied, 97–2196 (La.11/21/97); 703 So.2d 1312.

“The issuance of a permanent injunction takes place only after a trial on the

merits in which the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.” Zeringue

v. St. James Parish School Board, 13–444 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/19/13); 130 So.3d

356, 358-59, citing Mary Moe, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 03–2220 (La.

4/14/04); 875 So.2d 22, 29. The appellate court reviews the granting or denial of a

preliminary injunction under the manifest error standard. Id. The standard is the

same for a permanent injunction. Id.

Upon review of the record, we find that the trial court improperly converted

the hearing for preliminary injunction to a permanent injunction hearing. “The

jurisprudence is clear that a preliminary hearing cannot be converted to a

permanent injunction hearing absent a stipulation of the parties to the contrary.”

Elysian Fields Church of Christ v. Dillon, 08–989 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/18/09); 7

So.3d 1227, 1232. “A preliminary injunction is merely provisional and is tried as a

summary proceeding. By contrast, a permanent injunction must be tried as an

ordinary proceeding.” Hyman v. Puckett, 15–930 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/4/16); 193

So.3d 1184, 1190.

In the instant case, the first temporary restraining order (TRO) expired on

the day the preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled, May 30, 2019. Because

service was not effected on Mr. Bourgeois, the hearing was continued until June

12, 2019. According to the May 30, 2019 minute entry, Mrs. Richard was

provided with a certified copy of an Order to Extend Order of Protection and

Temporary Restraining Order2 in open court, and the service instructions were to

2
We note that because the Order to Extend Order of Protection referenced the temporary restraining order
(TRO) issued on May 23, 2019, as opposed to the TRO issued on May 30, 2019, both the TRO issued on
May 23, 2019 and the TRO issued on May 30, 2019 expired on June 10, 2019.

19-CA-494 4

attempt to serve Mr. Bourgeois at a physical custody exchange of Kyle Junior in

front of the Sheriff’s Office.

The record does not indicate that the parties entered into a stipulation that

the preliminary hearing be converted to a hearing for a permanent injunction. In

Louisiana Serv. & Contracting Co., Inc. v. St. Bernard Par. Gov't, 08–174

(La.App. 4 Cir. 11/26/08); 1 So.3d 557, 560, writ denied, 09–439 (La. 4/17/09); 6

So.3d 792, the Fourth Circuit upheld a permanent injunction granted after a

hearing for preliminary injunction, without a full trial on the merits. The Fourth

Circuit opined that “it is equally well established that where a judgment denying a

preliminary injunction after a hearing on the rule also passes on the merits of the

case and effectively disposes of all issues presented by the pleadings, such

judgment is a final judgment.” However, that case is distinguishable from the

instant case in that the appellate court in Louisiana Serv. & Contracting Co., Inc.

noted that “the trial court went to great lengths to provide the parties with adequate

time to submit evidence and brief the issues,” and “there were no factual disputes

[in that case . . .,] and the legal issues were vigorously contested in [. . .] pre-

hearing and post-hearing memorandums.” Id. “A permanent injunction should not

be granted unless the parties know their case is to be tried on the merits and have

an opportunity to prove or defend their case on a preponderance of the evidence”

New Orleans Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Lee, 425 So.2d 947, 949 (La.App. 4th Cir.

1983). Mr. Bourgeois, representing himself pro se, only had six days to prepare

after receiving notice to “show cause on June 12, 2019 [. . .] why the foregoing

Temporary Restraining order [he was served with] should not be made a

Preliminary Injunction3.”

3
The Louisiana Uniform Abuse Prevention Order Mr. Bourgeois was served with was issued on May 30,
2019 at 9:21 a.m. Underneath the judge’s signature, a check mark appears besides the option “if TRO,
issued ex parte.”

19-CA-494 5

In Lasalle, supra, an area judge filed an action seeking an injunction against

a social acquaintance, who had, over a period of seven years, began making

harassing phone calls to the judge’s house and progressed to passing by her house,

leaving notes in her mailbox and on her door, threatening her in her workplace

parking facility, and abusing other court personnel. After a hearing where seven

witnesses besides the parties testified, the First Circuit affirmed the trial court

judgment granting only a preliminary injunction in favor of the judge. Similar to

Lasalle, in the instant case, the hearing addressed the case on its merits, the parties

introduced evidence into the record, and a few witnesses testified. “[I]n some

cases the merits of an action may be decided during an interlocutory proceeding,

this is only when the parties have expressly agreed to submit the case for final

decision at the hearing on the rule for a preliminary injunction.” Zachary

Mitigation Area, LLC v. Tangipahoa Par. Council, 16–1675 (La.App. 1 Cir.

9/21/17); 231 So.3d 687, 692; See also Bally's Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana

Gaming Control Bd., 99–2617 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/31/01); 807 So.2d 257, 263, writ

denied, 01–510 (La. 1/11/02); 807 So.2d 225. (“The principal demand, as opposed

to the preliminary injunction, is determined on its merits only after a full trial under

ordinary process, even though the hearing on the summary proceedings to obtain

the preliminary injunction may touch upon or decide issues regarding the merits.”)

Mr. Bourgeois did not consent to the June 12, 2019 hearing’s conversion to a

hearing for permanent injunction, did not receive an opportunity to consent to the

conversion, or receive notice that the hearing could result in a permanent

injunction against him. In fact, at the end of the June 12, 2019 hearing, the trial

court’s oral ruling stated that a Uniform Abuse Protection Order would not issue.

Because Mr. Bourgeois and Mrs. Richard did not “expressly agree to submit the

case for final decision” at the preliminary injunction hearing, we vacate the order

granting a permanent injunction against Mr. Bourgeois. See Bally’s, supra, at 263.

19-CA-494 6

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment dated June 12, 2019

granting permanent injunctive relief in favor of Mrs. Richard. This matter is

remanded for further proceedings. Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED

19-CA-494 7

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
MARCH 18, 2020 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

19-CA-494
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE HENRY G. SULLIVAN, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
CHRISTY M. HOWLEY (APPELLANT)

MAILED
TRACY G. SHEPPARD (ATTORNEY) M. ELIZABETH BOWMAN (ATTORNEY)
412 DOLHONDE STREET 629 LAFAYETTE STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053 GRETNA, LA 70053