Troy Lillie, Et Al. v. Stanford Trust Company, State Of Louisiana, Office Of Financial Institutions And Sei Investments Company

Supreme Court of Louisiana
April 12, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
TROY LILLIE, ET AL.
VS.
STANFORD TRUST COMPANY, STATE OF
LOUISIANA, OFFICE OF FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AND SEI INVESTMENTS
COMPANY
No. 2022-CA-00328
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: State of Louisiana through the Office of Financial Institutions - Appellant
Defendant; Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions - Appellant Defendant;
Constitutional Question, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court
Number(s) C581670;
_ _ _ _ _ _
April 12, 2022
Motion to dismiss granted. Appeal transferred to the court of appeal. See per
curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
04/12/2022 "See News Release 016 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2022-CA-00328
TR
OY LILLIE, ET AL.
VS.
STANFORD TRUST COMPANY, STATE OF LOUISIANA, OFFICE OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND SEI INVESTMENTS COMPANY
O
n Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge
P
ER CURIAM
A
ppellant, the State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Office of Financial
Institutions, invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this court pursuant to La. Const.
art. V, § 5(D), on the ground that the district court declared La. R.S. 51:720 to be
unconstitutional. After the record was lodged, plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. Appellant filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss.
Pretermitting the merits, we find the appeal is not properly before this
court. Article V, § 5(D) vests appellate jurisdiction in this court in cases in
which “a law or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional....” A review of
the district court’ s judgment indicates the court merely denied appellant’s
motion for partial summary judgment. Nothing in the judgment declares a law
or ordinance unconstitutional.
Although the district court ’s reasons for judgment discuss the
constitutionality of La. R.S. 51:720, it is well- settled law that a trial court’s
oral or written reasons form no part of the judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art.
1918; Barber v. Louisiana Workforce Comm’n, 17-0750 (La. 6/5/17), 221 So.3d 38;
Perez v. Evenstar, Inc., 12-0100 (La. 6/22/12), 91 So.3d 288; Fla. Gas Transmission
Co. v. Lo uisiana Tax Comm’n, 09-0729 (La. 5/15/09), 10 So.3d 1219; Meaux v.
04/12/22

2

Galtier, 07-2474 (La. 1/25/08), 972 So. 2d 1137; Burmaster v. Plaquemines Par.
Gov’t, 07-1311 (La. 8/31/07), 963 So.2d 378; Carmena v. East Baton Rouge Parish
Sheriff’s Office, 06-0260 (La. 2/2/07), 947 So.2d 715.1
Because there is no declaration of unconstitutionality in the district court’ s
judgment, there is no basis for the exercise of this court’ s appellate jurisdiction.
Although we have plenary supervisory jurisdiction, we decline to exercise that
authority to review the proceedings in their current posture. Instead, in the interest
of justice, we will transfer the matter to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, with
instructions to convert the appeal to an application for supervisory writs.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is
dismissed based on lack of appellate jurisdiction. The matter is transferred to the
Court of Appeal, First Circuit, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1 Appellant urges us to consider St. Charles Gaming Co., Inc. v. River Boat Gaming Commission,
94-2697 (La. 11/10/94), 645 So.2d 208, in which we noted “probable appellate jurisdiction” over
a judgment granting a preliminary injunction, where the declaration of unconstitutionality was in
the court’s written reasons but not in the judgment. In doing so, we observed the “declaration
appears to be the basis for the trial court’s preliminary injunction judgment and therefore cannot
be considered as dictum lacking the force of an adjudication.” Id. at 209. This holding arose under
unique facts and is distinguishable. Unlike St. Charles Gaming, where the court granted relief to
the plaintiff by enjoining the parish from enforcing its zoning ordinances, the judgment in the
instant case merely denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, any reference to
constitutionality of the statute in the court’s reasons for judgment lacked the force of adjudication.