Danilo Augusto Feliciano v. Susan Hutson, in Her Official Capacity as Orleans Parish Sheriff and Nancy Ruth Landry, in Her Official Capacity as Louisiana Secretary of State

DANILO AUGUSTO * NO. 2025-CA-0360
FELICIANO
*
VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL
*
SUSAN HUTSON, IN HER FOURTH CIRCUIT
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS *
ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF STATE OF LOUISIANA
AND NANCY RUTH LANDRY, *******
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY
OF STATE

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2025-05223, DIVISION “I-14”
Honorable Lori Jupiter, Judge
******
Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano,
Judge Rachael D. Johnson, Judge Karen K. Herman, Judge Monique G. Morial)

BELSOME, C.J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS

Danilo Augusto Feliciano
400 Burgundy Street
New Orleans, LA 70112

PRO SE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Tracey J. Comeaux
John S. Williams
ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE
2800 Perdido Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, SUSAN HUTSON, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF

Celia R. Cangelosi
7914 Wrenwood Blvd., Suite D
Baton Rouge, LA 70809

Caroline M. Tomeny
SHOWS, CALI & WALSH, LLP
628 St. Louis Street

Baton Rouge, LA 70802
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, NANCY LANDRY, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE

Madro Bandaries
MADRO BANDARIES, PLC
1127 2nd Street
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR/APPELLEE, DARREN LOMBARD, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF CRIMINAL DISTRICT
COURT AND CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER

APPEAL DISMISSED

JUNE 17, 2025 AT 1:50 P.M.

JCL

RDJ

KKH

MGM

This matter arises from an election contest concerning a proposition

submitted to voters in Orleans Parish on May 3, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the

matter was heard in the district court and judgment was rendered dismissing the

claims of Danilo Augusto Feliciano (“Appellant”). Appellant now seeks review of

that judgment. Defendants, Nancy Landry in her official capacity as Louisiana

Secretary of State and Susan Hutson in her official capacity as Orleans Parish

Sheriff, filed motions to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the procedural record

establishes that the appeal was not perfected in accordance with the requirements

of La. R.S. 18:1409(D). For the reasons set forth below, we grant the motions to

dismiss the appeal.

On May 27, 2025, Appellant filed a Petition Contesting Election challenging

the results of a local proposition election held on May 3, 2025. Trial on the matter

was held on June 12, 2025. The district court rendered judgment dismissing the

1

petition at 2:29 p.m., and the written judgment was signed in chambers at 3:52 p.m.

that same day. On June 13, 2025, Appellant filed a notice of appeal at 3:44 p.m.

and submitted a cash bond to the clerk of court at 4:13 p.m., twenty-one minutes

after the 24-hour statutory deadline had expired.

Appeals in election matters are governed by the expedited procedures set

forth in La. R.S. 18:1409(D), which provides: “Within twenty-four hours after

rendition of judgment, a party aggrieved by the judgment may appeal by obtaining

an order of appeal and giving bond for a sum fixed by the court to secure the

payment of costs.” The statute imposes two mandatory requirements: the appellant

must (1) obtain an order of appeal, and (2) furnish a bond, both within twenty-four

hours of the trial court’s judgment.

Our jurisprudence has consistently held that these timelines are jurisdictional

in nature. The failure to comply deprives this Court of authority to consider the

merits of the appeal. Dumas v. Jetson, 446 So.2d 747, 749 (La. App. 1st Cir.

1983); Cornelius v. Greggs, 21-0883, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/2/21), 329 So.3d 314,

316; Sens v. Plaisance, 20-0382, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/12/20), 365 So.3d 17, 18

(“Absent a timely filed motion for appeal, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction

over the appeal”)(quoting Joseph v. Egan Health Care Corp., 19-10, p. 3 (La. App.

5 Cir. 5/6/19), 273 So.3d 459, 462). In Sens and Plaquemines Par. Council v.

Petrovich, 95-2263 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/18/95), 662 So.2d 542, we reaffirmed that

election statutes are to be construed strictly.

In Dumas, the court dismissed an election appeal where the bond was filed

just twenty-two minutes beyond the 24-hour deadline. The court emphasized that

the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and that the timeframe for

perfecting an appeal must be strictly enforced to ensure the timely resolution of

election disputes. Id., 446 So.2d at 479.

2

On a motion to dismiss an appeal, the burden of proof rests initially with the

mover to demonstrate a jurisdictional defect, and in the case sub judice, the defect

was the alleged untimely furnishing of the appeal bond. See PRCP-NS New

Orleans, LLC v. Swanson, 22-0393, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/16/22), 354 So.3d 239,

243. Once that prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the appellant to

establish that the appeal was perfected in compliance with the strict 24-hour

deadline imposed by La. R.S. 18:1409(D), which requires that both the order of

appeal be obtained and the bond furnished within 24 hours of the signing of the

judgment.

In this case, the district court’s written judgment was signed at 3:52 p.m. on

June 12, 2025. Accordingly, the statutory deadline for perfecting the appeal

expired at 3:52 p.m. on June 13, 2025. The notice of appeal was filed at 3:44 p.m.,

but the appellate record reflects that the bond was not posted until 4:13 p.m.,

twenty-one minutes after the deadline. On its face, the record supports the

conclusion that the appeal was not timely perfected.

The record does not clearly indicate the precise time at which the trial judge

signed the order of appeal and set the bond. However, Appellant failed to respond

to the motions to dismiss, did not offer any evidence to rebut the time stamps, and

did not explain or offer justification for the delay. When questioned at oral

argument, Appellant provided no factual basis to dispute the 4:13 p.m. bond time

or to demonstrate timely compliance.

Given the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of the deadlines in election

appeals, the absence of any contrary evidence or justification for the delay, and the

jurisprudential mandate for strict construction, dismissal is warranted. See Dumas,

446 So.2d at 749; Sens, 20-0382, p. 2, 365 So.3d at 18. Under the clear language

of La. R.S. 18:1409(D), the appeal was not timely perfected and must be

dismissed.

3

For the foregoing reasons, the motions to dismiss the appeal are GRANTED.

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

APPEAL DISMISSED

4