Linda Kocher v. Truth In Politics, Inc., And Causeway Connection Pac

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 22, 2020
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
LINDA KOCHER
VS.
TRUTH IN POLITICS, INC., AND
CAUSEWAY CONNECTION PAC
No.2020-C-01153
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE
: Truth in Politics, LLC - Applicant Defendant; Causeway Connection PAC -
Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Orleans Civil,
Orleans Civil District Court Number(s) 2019 -11867, Court of Appeal, Fourth
Circuit, Number(s) 2020-CA-0264;
_ _ _ _ _ _
December 22, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Johnson, C.J., would deny. Moot. The activity sought to be enjoined already
occurred.
Hughes, J., would deny.
Genovese, J., would deny.
WJC
JLW
SJC
JBM
12/22/2020 “See News Release 050 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
N
o. 2020-C-01153
L
INDA KOCHER
VS.
TRUTH IN POLITICS, INC., AND CAUSEWAY CONNECTION PAC
O
n Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans
Civil
P
ER CURIAM
Three days prior to the 2019 gubernatorial election, Plaintiff sought to enjoin
Defendants from running allegedly false political campaign advertisements.
Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order, the ads stopped, and the election
occurred. Prior to the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants filed an
exception of no cause of action based on the completion of the election and the
mootness of the petition. The lower courts denied the exception.
We reverse. Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:1463 allows an affected voter or
candidate to obtain an injunction to stop the dissemination of false information in
order to maintain fairness and integrity in an election. The statute does not
contemplate damages. See Badeaux v. Sw. Computer Bureau, Inc., 05-0612 (La.
3/17/06), 929 So. 2d 1211. Thus, the only available remedy under Louisiana
Revised Statutes 18:1463 is an injunction. In Verdun v. Scallon Brothers
Contractors, Inc., 263 La. 1073, 270 So.2d 512, 513 (1972), t he supreme court
explained that in cases of injunctive relief, it is clear that when the activity which a
plaintiff seeks to enjoin has already occurred during the pendency of the suit,
the matter is moot as courts “will not review a case where only injunctive relief is
sought when the need for that relief has ceased to be a justiciable issue.” Here, the
12/22/2020

2
advertisements ceased upon the issuance of the temporary restraining order and the
occurrence of the election. Thus, there is no justiciable issue.
Pursuant to the statute, attorney fees are available if the petitioner is
successful in obtaining a permanent injunction. Plaintiff argues she is entitled to
recoup the attorney fees she accrued in seeking to enjoin Defendants’ conduct and
should be allowed to proceed to a preliminary and permanent injunction hearing.
However, there is no on -going activity to enjoin. If the legislature intended to
make attorney fees available upon the procurement of a temporary restraining
order, it could have done so. The three stages of the injunctive process are readily
known and the legislature is presumed to know the law. State ex rel. Varnado v.
Louisiana Highway Commission, 177 La. 1, 147 So. 361, 362 (1933). Further,
“[t]he legislature is presumed to have acted with deliberation and to have enacted a
statute in light of the preceding statutes involving the same subject matter.” Holly
& Smith Architects, Inc. v. St. Helena Congregate Facility, Inc. , 06-582, p. 10 (La.
11/29/06), 943 So.2d 1037, 1045.)
Plaintiff also suggests the governor may run again in the future and could be
subjected to the same false ads. She contends the statute enjoins “future” conduct;
thus, there remains a cause of action. However , it is well settled that “courts
should not decide abstract, hyp othetical or moot controversies, or
render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies.” CITGO Petroleum
Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Com'n, 04–0914 (La. 3/2/05), 898 So.2d 291.
Because the injunctive relief sought has been rendered moot and the only
remaining remedy under the statute (attorney fees) is conditioned upon the success
of a now unavailable remedy (permanent injunction), the lower courts erred in
denying the exception of no cause of action.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.