Dr. Ralph Slaughter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, its Fiduciaries, ABC Insurance Company, the Clerks of Court for all District, Appellate, and Supreme Courts, the Judicial Administrator, 123 Insurance Company, and XYZ Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA

FIRST CIRCUIT

NUMBER 2023 CA 1168

DR. RALPH SLAUGHTER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED

VERSUS

LOUISIANA STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ITS
FIDUCIARIES, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CLERKS OF COURT FOR
ALL DISTRICT, APPELLATE, AND SUPREME COURTS, THE JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATOR, 123 INSURANCE COMPANY, AND XYZ INSURANCE
COMPANY

Judgment Rendered:
OCT 112024

Ir dr Appealed from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Suit Number C727578

Honorable Kelly Balfour, Presiding

Dr. Ralph Slaughter Plaintiff/Appellant
Baton Rouge, LA Pro Se

Harry Rosenberg Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
New Orleans, LA Sandra Vujnovich, the Judicial
Administrator for the Louisiana
And Supreme Court; Veronica Koclanes,
Clerk of Court for the Louisiana
Sheri M. Morris Supreme Court; and Rodd Naquin,
Baton Rouge, LA Clerk of Court for the Louisiana First
Circuit Court of Appeal

Vicki M. Crochet Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
Peyton T. Gascon Barbara McManus, Ternisha
Baton Rouge, LA Hutchinson, LASERS Employee
Defendants, and LASERS Trustee
Defendants

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., PENZATO, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

GUIDRY, C.J.,

Dr.
Ralph Slaughter appeals from a district court judgment sustaining

peremptory exceptions raising the objection of res judicata raised by defendants,

Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, Charles Castille, Byron Decoteau,

Jr., Shannon S. Templet, Thomas C. Bickham, Barbara McManus, and Ternisha

Hutchinson, dismissing his claims against them with prejudice. For the reasons that

follow, we reverse and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The history of litigation between Dr. Slaughter and various defendants

regarding the inclusion of supplemental pay in the calculation of his retirement benefit

and in calculation of his terminal pay spans over ten years. The following recitation

of facts and procedural history is set forth in Slaughter v. Board of Supervisors of

Southern Universily and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 10- 1049 ( La. App. I st
Cir. 8/ 2/ 11), 76 So. 3d 438, writ denied, 11- 2110 ( La. 1/ 13/ 12), 77 So. 3d 970

Slaughter 1) and Slaughter v. Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System, 20-

0881 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 25/ 21), 322 So. 3d 839, writ denied, 21- 00567 (La. 6/ 22/ 21),

318 So. 3d 706 ( Slaughter 11).

In 2006, the Southern University Board of Supervisors ( Board) appointed Dr.

Slaughter President of the Southern University System. In 2007, the Board and Dr.

Slaughter entered into a two-year employment agreement whereby the parties agreed

that Dr. Slaughter would receive a base salary of $220,000. 00 per year and a salary

supplement of $200,000. 00 per year. When Dr. Slaughter' s two-year contract expired

in 2009, he retired from state employment with approximately thirty- five years of
service. Thereafter, the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System ( LASERS)

began paying Dr. Slaughter a monthly retirement benefit of $24,487. 95, which was

calculated based upon Dr. Slaughter' s earnings as reported to LASERS by the Board.

Dr. Slaughter subsequently filed suit against the Board for past due wages,

specifically contesting the Board' s calculation of terminal payments made to him.

The trial court ruled that the Board miscalculated Dr. Slaughter' s income base by
including supplemental pay and expense allowances he received from the Board and

further found that the Board should have calculated Dr. Slaughter' s terminal pay and

retirement benefits based solely on his annual base salary. This court examined the

retirement statutes and La. Const. art. X, §I O( A)( 1)( b) and found "[ f,rom our reading

of these particular retirement statutes, it is clear that the legislature did not intend for

supplemental pay or expense allowances to be included in the calculation of

compensation for employees who are not law enforcement officers or firefighters and

did not fall within the exception." Slaughter I, 10- 1049 at pp. 25- 26, 76 So. 3d at 454.

After rejecting Dr. Slaughter' s remaining arguments, this court affirmed the district

court' s judgment, finding no error in the district court' s determination that the salary

supplement and expense allowances should not be used in the leave pay calculation.

Slaughter I, 10- 1049 at p. 28, 76 So. 3d at 455.'

As a result of the Slaughter I litigation, the Board became aware that it had

erroneously included supplemental funds in Dr. Slaughter' s earnings reported to

LASERS.
As such, the Board sent a letter to LASERS on January 22, 2010, advising
LASERS of the error. When the Slaughter I decision became final, LASERS sent

correspondence to Dr. Slaughter advising that it intended to retroactively reduce his

retirement benefit starting June 1, 2012 due to an error made by the Board in the

reporting of his earnings. Relying on La. R.S. 11: 192, LASERS maintained that it

may adjust benefits and further reduce the corrected benefit to recover overpayments.

1 While the district court ruled that supplemental pay and expense allowances should also not have
been included in the calculation of Dr. Slaughter' s retirement benefit, this court specifically noted
that the issue of the calculation of Dr. Slaughter' s retirement benefit was not before the court on
appeal. Slaughter I, 10- 1049 at 24, 76 So. 3d at 453.

3

Thereafter, Dr. Slaughter filed suit against LASERS seeking a writ of

mandamus, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment confirming LASERS has no

authority or ability to reduce his retirement benefits. Dr. Slaughter alleged that his

retirement benefits should be calculated based on the entirety of his earnings,

including salary supplements. The district court denied Dr. Slaughter' s motion for a

writ of mandamus,
mandatory injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment and

dismissed these claims against LASERS with prejudice. On appeal, this court

addressed the issue of whether " earned compensation" as defined in La. R.S.

11: 403( 10) includes salary supplements. Relying on this court' s findings in our

previous opinion in Slaughter I, this court found that the district court was correct in

concluding that " earned compensation" as defined in La. R.S. 11: 403( 10) does not

include Dr. Slaughter' s salary supplements. Slaughter II, 20- 0881 at p. 11, 322 So.

3d at 847.

On January 10, 2023, Dr. Slaughter filed the instant action naming as

defendants, LASERS and LASERS fiduciaries, including LASERS Board of

Trustees, its individual members, its Executive Director, Chief of Staff, Chief

Administrative Officer and Chief Investment Officer (Board of Trustee defendants).

Dr. Slaughter also named generally the Clerks of Court of all district courts, appellate

courts, and the supreme court in the State of Louisiana in their official capacity and

the Judicial Administrator of the Louisiana Supreme Court in her official capacity.

Dr. Slaughter alleged that LASERS is improperly including supplemental pay as a

part of the earned compensation for judges, upon which their retirement benefits are

calculated, and that this practice violates La. Const. art. X, § 10( A)( 1)( b). Dr.

Slaughter alleged that this practice prevents the fund from being maintained on a

sound actuarial basis and results in the payment of smaller and less frequent cost of

living adjustments ( COLA) for LASERS members. Dr. Slaughter sought a

declaratory judgment that La. R.S. 13: 10. 3, 11: 1380, 11: 1352, 11: 558, 11: 558. 2,

4

11: 560 and 11: 553, which relate to supplemental pay for judges and its inclusion in

calculating their retirement benefits, conflict with and violate La. Const. art. X,

10( A)( 1)( b), which limits the inclusion of supplemental pay in calculating retirement

benefits to law enforcement officers and firefighters as found by this court in
Slaughter II. Dr. Slaughter also sought a declaratory judgment that it is

unconstitutional for any LASERS members who are not law enforcement officers or

firefighters to have supplemental pay included in the calculation of their retirement

benefits. Dr. Slaughter sought to enjoin LASERS from continuing to deplete and

divert assets of the fund by overpaying judges or other LASERS members by means

of including supplemental pay in calculating their retirement benefits, in violation of

La. Const. art. X, §10( A)( 1)( b).

Dr. Slaughter further alleged that, notwithstanding the unconstitutional nature

of La. R.S. 13: 10. 3, the clerks of all the courts in the state collect fees for every civil

filing, to be used for an unconstitutional purpose, i.e., the payment of retirement

contributions on supplemental compensation paid to judges. As such, Dr. Slaughter

sought a declaratory judgment that the clerks of all district, appellate, and supreme

courts in the state of Louisiana are in violation of the Louisiana Constitution in

levying and collecting fees for every civil filing for the funding of the Judges'

Supplemental Compensation Fund, which violates La. Const. art. X, § 10( A)( 1)( b).

Dr. Slaughter further sought to enjoin the clerks of court from continuing to levy and

collect fees for every civil filing for funding the Judges' Supplemental Compensation

Fund. Finally, Dr. Slaughter sought damages to compensate him for monies paid in

court costs and filing fees that were improperly charged for funding the Judges'
Supplemental Compensation Fund.

In addition to his individual claims, Dr. Slaughter also alleged two purported

class actions based on these same claims.

9

Thereafter, Dr. Slaughter filed a motion to recuse the district court judge

assigned to the case, alleging that all Louisiana judges have an interest in the

litigation' s outcome and there exists a substantial and objective basis that would

reasonably be expected to prevent the judge from conducting any aspect of the cause

in a fair and impartial manner because the case challenges the constitutionality of

judges' supplemental pay being included in the calculation of their retirement benefit.

On March 14, 2023, LASERS filed a peremptory exception raising the

objections of res judicata, no cause of action, and nonjoinder of indispensable parties. 2

Several LASERS Board of Trustee defendants, Charles Castille, Byron Decoteau, Jr.,

Shannon S. Templet, Thomas C. Bickham, Barbara McManus, and Ternisha

Hutchinson ( collectively with LASERS the " LASERS defendants")
subsequently

filed their own peremptory exception raising the objections of res judicata, no cause

of action, and nonjoinder of indispensable parties, adopting and incorporating by

reference the arguments advanced by LASERS.

Additionally, Sandra Vujnovich, the Judicial Administrator for the Louisiana

Supreme Court; Veronica O. Koclanes, Clerk of Court for the Louisiana Supreme

Court; and Rodd Naquin, Clerk of Court for the Louisiana First Circuit Court of

Appeal, filed a peremptory exception raising the objections of no cause of action, no

right of action, and lack of standing.

Following a hearing on Dr. Slaughter' s motion to recuse and the defendants'

peremptory exceptions, the district court signed a judgment sustaining the LASERS

defendants' peremptory exceptions raising the objection of res judicata, denying as

moot the LASERS defendants' peremptory exceptions raising the objections no cause

2 We note that according to La. C. C.P. art. 927, as amended in 2008 by La. Acts 2008, No.824 § 1,
the peremptory exception raising the objections of res judicata, no cause of action, and nonjoinder
of a party may also be noticed by either the trial court or the appellate court on its own motion. As
such, even if not properly plead, the exceptions can still be considered by the trial court, and are
properly before the appellate court, because such exceptions may be raised by the trial court on its
own motion. See Strategic Medical Alliance II v. State, 22- 0051, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 4/ 22),
355 So. 3d 55, 59 and Three Rivers Commons Condominium Association v. Grodner, 16- 0067, p.
4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 10/ 17), 220 So. 3d 776, 779.
C.1

of action and failure to join indispensable parties, and dismissing with prejudice Dr.
Slaughter' s claims against the LASERS defendants. Dr. Slaughter now appeals from

the district court' s judgment.'

DISCUSSION

Res Judicata

Louisiana Revised Statute 13: 4231, which sets forth the general principles

regarding res judicata, provides:

Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is
conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct
review, to the following extent:
1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing
at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence
that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in
the judgment.
2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action
existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and
the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.
3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is

conclusive, in any subsequent action between them, with respect to any
issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential
to that judgment.

The chief inquiry is whether the second action asserts a cause of action that

arises out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first

action.
Avenue Plaza, L.L.C. v. Falgoust, 96- 0173, p. 6 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 7/ 2/ 96),
676 So. 2d 1077, 1080. The Louisiana Supreme Court has emphasized that all of the

following elements must be satisfied in order for res judicata to preclude a second

action: ( 1) the judgment is valid; ( 2) the judgment is final; ( 3) the parties are the same;

4) the cause( s) of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final

judgment in the first litigation; and ( 5) the cause( s) of action asserted in the second

suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first

3 The district court also signed a judgment denying Dr. Slaughter' s motion to recuse, sustaining Ms.
Vujnovich, Ms. Koclanes, and Mr. Naquin' s exception raising the objections of no cause of action
and no right of action, denying their exception raising the objection of lack of standing as moot, and
dismissing Dr. Slaughter' s claims against these defendants with prejudice. Dr. Slaughter has
separately appealed from this district court judgment. See Slaughter v. Louisiana State Employees'_
Retirement System, 2023CA1167.

7

litigation. Burguieres v. Pollingue, 02- 1385, p. 8 ( La. 2/ 25/ 03), 843 So. 2d 1049,
1053.

The burden ofproving the facts essential to support the objection of res judicata

is on the party pleading the objection. If any doubt exists as to the application of res

judicata, the objection must be overruled and the second lawsuit maintained. Landry

v. Town of Livingston Police Department, 10- 0673, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 22/ 10),
54 So. 3d 772, 776.

In the instant case, the LASERS defendants assert that Dr. Slaughter' s instant

claims are barred by res judicata, because, as in Slaughter I and Slaughter II, Dr.

Slaughter is challenging the calculation of his retirement benefit and the role of

supplemental compensation. However, the LASERS defendants, as the parties

bearing the burden of proof, failed to offer any evidence in support of their exceptions

raising the objection of res judicata. Therefore, absent any competent evidence

showing that the elements of res judicata have been established, we find that the

LASERS defendants have failed to meet their burden of proof on their exceptions.

See Jefferson v. Board of Supervisors of Southern University and Agricultural and

Mechanical College, 21- 0716, pp. 7- 8 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 3/ 22), 341 So. 3d 603, 607-
07-

16M.

No Cause of Action

In sustaining the LASERS defendants' peremptory exceptions raising the

objection of res judicata, the district court denied as moot their objection of no cause

of action. The LASERS defendants assert in brief, however, that the district court' s

judgment should be affirmed because Dr. Slaughter failed to state a cause of action.

The LASERS defendants neither appealed nor answered the appeal concerning the
district court' s denial oftheir objection of no cause of action. Therefore, the objection

of no cause of action is not properly before the court at this time for review, and we

decline to exercise our power of review as to this issue. See Hall v. Hebert, 99- 2781,

9

pp. 7- 8 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 22/ 01), 798 So. 2d 159, 163- 164; see also Louisiana Public

Service Commission v. Louisiana State Legislature, 12- 0353, pp. 9- 10 ( La. App. lst
Cir. 4/ 26/ 13), 117 So. 3d 532, 538

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court

sustaining the LASERS defendants' exceptions raising the objection of res judicata

and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All costs

of this appeal, in the amount of $ 1, 007. 00, are assessed to the Louisiana State

Employees' Retirement System, Charles Castille, Byron Decoteau, Jr., Shannon S.

Templet, Thomas C. Bickham, Barbara McManus, and Temisha Hutchinson.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

i

DR. RALPH SLAUGHTER, STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED COURT OF APPEAL

VERSUS FIRST CIRCUIT

LOUISIANA STATE 2023 CA 1168
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, ITS FIDUCIARIES,
ABC INSURANCE COMPANY,
THE CLERKS OF COURT FOR
ALL DISTRICT, APPELLATE,
AND SUPREME COURTS,
THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR,
123 INSURANCE COMPANY,
AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY
KRISTIN E. HILL

6STROMBERG, J., concurs.

YA I respectfully concur with the result reached in this case. I would vacate the

district court' s judgment sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objection
of res judicata because the exception was not in proper form. Louisiana Code of

Civil Procedure article 924, entitled " Form of exceptions," states: " All exceptions

shall comply with Articles 853, 854, and 863, and, whenever applicable, with

Articles 855 through 861. They shall set forth the name and surname of the exceptor,

shall state with particularity the objections urged and the grounds thereof, and shall

contain a prayer for the relief sought." Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article

854, entitled "
Form of pleading," states, "
No technical forms of pleading are

required. All allegations of fact of the petition, exceptions, or answer shall be

simple, concise, and direct, and shall be set forth in numbered paragraphs. As far as

practical, the contents of each paragraph shall be limited to a single set of

circumstances."

In this case, the LASERS defendants' peremptory exception raising the

objection of res judicata does not comply with La. C. C.P. arts. 854 and 924 because

1

it does not set forth with particularity the grounds of the objection in numbered

paragraphs.
The LASERS defendants set forth the reasons supporting their

exception of res judicata in an accompanying memorandum. However, a

memorandum does not constitute a pleading recognized by the Louisiana Code of

Civil Procedure. Meaux v. Galtier, 2007- 2474 ( La. 1/ 25/ 08), 972 So. 2d 1137,

1138; Moore v. Vauthier, 2023- 1046 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 19/ 24), 389 So. 3d 872, 879.

The pleadings allowed in civil actions are petitions, exceptions, written motions, and

answers. La. C. C. P. art. 852.

While the district and appellate courts may notice a peremptory exception on

their own motions as set forth in the majority opinion pursuant to La. C. C. P. arts.

927( B) and 928( B), the cases cited therein did not involve the objection of res

judicata, but the objection of no right of action, which was asserted orally at the

hearings on the objection. See Strategic Medical Alliance II v. State, 22- 0051

La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 4/ 22), 355 So. 3d 55, 58- 59; Three Rivers Commons

Condominium Association v. Grodner, 16- 0067 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 10/ 17), 220

So. 3d 776, 779. Moreover, in Sherwin- Williams Co. v. First Louisiana

Construction, Inc., 2004- 0133 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 6/ 05), 915 So. 2d 841, 847 n. 5,

this court rejected a defendant' s attempt to join in a res judicata objection raised by

another defendant through an oral motion at the commencement of trial. This court

stated that pleadings are required to be in writing under La. C. C. P. art. 852, and oral

pleadings are not permitted.

Because the peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata was

not in proper form as the grounds of the objection were not set forth with

particularity, I would find that the district court erred in considering it.

2