Daniel O. Conwill IV, 739 Iberville, Llc D/b/a Felix's Restaurant & Oyster Bar, And Marina Costopoulos v. Mayor Latoya Cantrell, In Her Official Capacity

Supreme Court of Louisiana
July 30, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
DANIEL O. CONWILL IV, 739 IBERVILLE,
LLC D/B/A FELIX'S RESTAURANT &
OYSTER BAR, AND MARINA COSTOPOULOS
VS.
MAYOR LATOYA CANTRELL, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY
No. 2025-CC-00941
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Daniel O. Conwill, IV, et al. - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory
Writ, Parish of Orleans Civil, Civil District Court Number(s) 2025-06801, Court of
Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number(s) 2025-C-0452;
_ _ _ _ _ _
July 30, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Griffin, J., dissents.
Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
CRC
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
07/30/2025 "See News Release 034 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-CC-00941
DANIEL O. CONWILL IV, 739 IBERVILLE, LLC D/B/A FELIX'S
RESTAURANT & OYSTER BAR, AND MARINA COSTOPOULOS
VS.
MAYOR LATOYA CANTRELL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
On Supervisory Writ to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs are residents and business owners in the French Quarter of the City
of New Orleans (“City”). They seek review of a ruling of the district court denying
their request for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the mayor from directing the City
to perform under or give effect to a proposed emergency contract with Henry
Consulting, LLC for trash collection beginning on July 31, 2025.
Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 3601, a preliminary injunction “shall be
issued in cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise result to the
applicant. . . .” The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve status quo
until trial on the merits. Broadmoor, L.L.C. v. Ernest N. Morial New Orleans
Exhibition Hall Auth., 2004-0211 (La. 3/18/04), 867 So. 2d 651, 655. The only issue
to be considered at a hearing on a preliminary injunction is whether the moving party
has met its burden of proving that it will suffer irreparable injury, loss, or damage if
the injunction is not issued, that it is entitled to the relief sought as a matter of law,
and that it will likely prevail on the merits of the case. Farmer's Seafood Co. v. State
ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 2010-1534 (La. 9/3/10), 44 So. 3d 676, 678; General
Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels , 377 So.2d 346 (La.1979). A preliminary
injunction may be issued on a prima facie showing by the plaintiff that he is entitled
to relief. Mary Moe, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 2003-2220 (La. 4/14/04), 875
So. 2d 22, 29.

2
In the case before us, plaintiffs allege the City’s proposed emergency contract
with Henry Consulting, LLC was not lawfully entered because there was no actual
emergency at that time. Instead, plaintiffs maintain the mayor unilaterally created
the emergency by terminating the existing trash collection contract with IV Waste,
Inc. Plaintiffs further assert that to the extent the mayor proclaimed an emergency,
the City Council acted pursuant to its powers under La. R.S. 29:72 7(D)(2) to
immediately terminate the state of emergency.1 The emergency contract with Henry
Consulting, LLC has a considerably higher maximum financial exposure (“not to
exceed” clause) than the existing contract and may result in an increased burden on
the taxpayers, including plaintiffs.2
We find plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to support the issuance of a
preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs have raised significant legal questions concerning
whether the City established a proper basis for entering into the emergency contract
with Henry Consulting, LLC and whether the contract based on an emergency,
assuming one existed, extends for a year after the purported emergency was
terminated. These questions cannot be resolved prior to the commencement of the
contract on July 31, 2025. Failure to grant injunctive relief will cause plaintiffs
irreparable harm by allowing this contract to go into immediate effect
notwithstanding serious concerns about its illegality. To preserve the status quo, a
preliminary injunction is necessary and appropriate.

1 Mayor Cantrell attempts to enter into a one-year multi-million-dollar emergency contract based on
a self-declared emergency that was terminated in less than a day.

2 Although not currently before us, we note Act 445 of 2025 directs the French Quarter Management
District (“FQMD”) to “procure its own emergency contract to ensure continuation of services within
its boundaries” when the City lacks a “lawfully contracted ve ndor” and “cannot provide sanitation
services within the French Quarter at a level reasonably commensurate with historic practices.” Recent
media reports indicate the FQMD has awarded a contract to IV Waste, LLC based on its authority
under state law. The plaintiffs, like all citizens of New Orleans, have an interest in functional garbage
collection, but they also have an interest in not having to bear the cost of unnecessary double
collection.

3
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is reversed. The
request for preliminary injunction is granted. The case is remanded to the district
court to fix the amount and manner of security for costs as required by La. Code Civ.
P. art. 3610 and for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.