Lonesome Development, Llc v. Town Of Abita Springs

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 29, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
LONESOME DEVELOPMENT, LLC
VS.
TOWN OF ABITA SPRINGS
No. 2025-C-00154
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN
RE: Town of Abita Springs - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 2019-
14436, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2024 CA 0396;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 29, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JDH
JBM
PDG
JMG
CRC
05/29/2025 "See News Release 025 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-C-00124
consolidated with
No. 2025-C-00154
LONESOME DEVELOPMENT, LLC
VS.
TOWN OF ABITA SPRINGS
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany
PER CURIAM
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 225(A) sets forth the mandatory
procedure applicable to punishment for constructive contempt of court, pertinently
providing:
Except as otherwise provided by law, a person charged with committing
a constructive contempt of court may be found guilty thereof and
punished therefor only after the trial by the judge of a rule against him
to show cause why he should not be adjudged gui lty of contempt and
punished accordingly. The rule to show cause may issue on the court’s
own motion or on motion of a party to the action or proceeding and
shall state the facts alleged to constitute the contempt. In all … cases
[other than those involv ing constructive contempt of an appellate
court], a certified copy of the motion, and of the rule to show cause,
shall be served upon the person charged with contempt in the same
manner as a subpoena at least forty-eight hours before the time assigned
for the trial of the rule.
A person charged with contempt is entitled to notice of the charge against him, in
the form of a formal rule to show cause, which must be served in the same manner
as a subpoena. These procedural requirements are intended to clearly and fairly
apprise the accused of the nature and cause of the charge against him, so he can
defend himself. Lang v. Asten, Inc., 2005-1119 (La. 1/13/06), 918 So. 2d 453, 455.
Here, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce a final judgment and for contempt and
sanctions, asserting the Town of Abita Springs was not complying with the portion
of the final judgment order ing specific performance of a Public Unit Development

2
Agreement. Plaintiff sought imprisonment of the Town’s mayor, Dan Curtis.
Plaintiff served the motion by email to counsel for the Town, not Mayor Curtis. The
trial court rendered judgment against the mayor, not the Town, holding him in
contempt and ordering his incarceration.1
An email does not satisfy Article 225(A)’s requirement of service in the same
manner as service of a subpoena . Subpoenas are served in the same manner as a
citation, except when a party is summoned as a witness, in which case service of the
subpoena may be made by personal service on the witness’s attorney of record. La.
Code Civ. P. art. 1355. The court of appeal relied on La. Code Civ. P. art. 1313(B),
which allows pleadings subsequent to the original petition to be served by email.
However, contempt proceedings a re specifically governed by Article 225 , which
prevails over the general service provision of Article 1313(B). See Davis v. State
through Louisiana Racing Comm’n , 2020-01020 (La. 5/13/21), 320 So. 3d 1028,
1032.
Email service of the motion was not sufficient to support a contempt judgment
against either the Town or Mayor Curtis. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 225. Without
proper service, the contempt judgment against Mayor Curtis is invalid.2 These writ
applications are granted, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the
judgment holding Mayor Curtis in contempt is vacated.

1 Our jurisprudence is clear that a trial court's reasons for judgment form no part of the judgment,
and appellate courts review judgments, not reasons for judgment. T.S v. Congregation of Holy
Cross S. Province, Inc., 2022-01826 (La. 6/27/23), 366 So. 3d 64, 67 n.6.

2 Although the motion for contempt also sought to hold the Town of Abita Springs in contempt,
the judgment held only Mayor Curtis in contempt. We note, however, that service by email was
likewise ineffective as to the Town of Abita Springs. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 225(A).