Dianne Leboyd Versus Roger Scott, Shandrof Burks, Darryl Daigs, Herman Bailey, Donald Pollard, Sr., Randall Campbell, Sr., Clyde Taylor, Elbert Shorts, Sr., Nathaniel Gayten, Wendell Eugene, Alvin Sumler, Sr., Ivory Peterson, Bryan Singleton, and St. Matthew Baptist Church of New Sarpy

DIANNE LEBOYD NO. 23-C-109

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

ROGER SCOTT, SHANDROF BURKS, DARRYL COURT OF APPEAL
DAIGS, HERMAN BAILEY, DONALD
POLLARD, SR., RANDALL CAMPBELL, SR., STATE OF LOUISIANA
CLYDE TAYLOR, ELBERT SHORTS, SR.,
NATHANIEL GAYTEN, WENDELL EUGENE,
ALVIN SUMLER, SR., IVORY PETERSON,
BRYAN SINGLETON, AND ST. MATTHEW
BAPTIST CHURCH OF NEW SARPY

May 03, 2023

Linda Wiseman
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE DIANNE LEBOYD

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE M. LAUREN
LEMMON, DIVISION "D", NUMBER 88,299

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Robert A. Chaisson

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED

Relator/plaintiff, Dianne LeBoyd, seeks this Court’s supervisory review of
the trial court’s February 2, 2023 ruling which denied her motion for contempt as
procedurally untimely since it did not comply with the deadline set in the court’s
pretrial order.

In this matter, plaintiff filed a petition for writs of quo warranto and
mandamus against respondents/defendants, Roger Scott, Shandrof Burks, Darryl
Daigs, Herman Bailey, Donald Pollard, Sr., Randall Campbell, Sr., Clyde Taylor,
Elbert Shorts, Sr., Nathaniel Gayten, Wendell Eugene, Alvin Sumler, Sr., Ivory
Peterson, Bryan Singleton, and St. Matthew Baptist Church of New Sarpy.
Therein, plaintiff alleged that defendants are the current deacon board of St.
Matthew Baptist Church of New Sarpy and were holding office and directing
management in violation of the church’s bylaws. She also contended that she
served as the church’s financial secretary since 1984 until she was recently
improperly removed her from the position by defendants.
On November 28, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for contempt in which she
argued that defendants were in contempt of court for violating the terms of the
parties’ May 24, 2022 consent judgment and the trial court’s June 8, 2022 written
judgment which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. In her

motion for contempt, plaintiff claimed that on May 24, 2022, the parties entered
into a consent judgment, agreeing to a selection process to choose the new pastor
of the church; however, she alleged that the selection process was not appropriately
explained to the membership, nor was it appropriately followed. Additionally, as
part of the June 8, 2022 judgment granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
judgment, the trial court ordered that defendants be stripped of their corporate titles
and ability to conduct the business and financial management of the church, that
the church conduct a new election of the board of trustees, that plaintiff be
reinstated to the office of financial secretary of the church, and that she be paid
restitution. In the motion for contempt, plaintiff argued that defendants are in
contempt of the June 8, 2022 judgment since they still hold their corporate titles
and continue to control the business and management of the church. She also
argued that defendants are in contempt for failing to reinstate her as financial
secretary.
In opposition to the motion for contempt, defendants asserted that the
motion did not comply with the court’s “Bench Trial Order After Conference,”
which required that all rules and dispositive motions be filed at least 60 days
before trial. Defendants alleged that the motion for contempt was not filed at least
60 days before the January 17, 2023 trial date.

The parties appeared for a hearing before the trial court on January 18, 2023
on the rule for contempt and for a trial on the issue of restitution. Plaintiff stated
that the parties agreed to continue both the motion for contempt and the trial on
restitution subject to one objection by defendants. Defendants then argued that the
motion for contempt was procedurally untimely. Defendants argued that the
claims made in the motion for contempt were first raised back in the
“summertime,” and there was ample time since then to file the motion before the
deadline set in the pretrial order. Plaintiff argued in response that the motion for
contempt is not related to the issues that remain to be tried, and thus the court’s
pretrial order was not applicable. The trial court denied the motion for contempt as
untimely. A written judgment was signed on February 2, 2023.
The procedures to be followed in charging and adjudicating a charge of
constructive contempt are described in La. C.C.P. art. 225, and include a rule to
show cause describing the facts alleged to constitute the contempt, notice to the
person charged at least 48 hours before the hearing, and a trial of the rule.
Succession of Bell, 06-1710 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/8/07), 964 So.2d 1067, 1071.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 1551 outlines pre-trial conference
procedure in Louisiana. The theory inherent behind pre-trial procedure is avoiding
surprise and orderly disposition of the case. La. C.C.P. art. 1551; Perniciaro v.
Hamed, 20-62 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/16/20), 309 So.3d 813, 833. A pre-trial order
controls the subsequent course of the action, but can be modified to prevent
manifest injustice. Id. La. C.C.P. art. 1551 provides the trial court with great
discretion in implementing pretrial orders and ensuring that the particulars are
enforced. Id.

Upon review of the writ application, supplement, and opposition, we find
that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for contempt as
procedurally untimely. The only remaining matter to be determined at trial is the
amount of restitution owed. The motion for contempt does not concern that issue
and deals with allegations that defendants have failed to comply with previous
judgments of the trial court. As such, we find that the trial court’s denial of the

motion for contempt on the ground that it is untimely and thus its refusal to
conduct a hearing on the motion for contempt is an abuse of discretion and would
result in manifest injustice.

Accordingly, we grant plaintiff’s writ application, vacate the trial court’s
February 2, 2023 judgment, and remand the matter to the trial court to conduct a
hearing on the motion for contempt.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 3rd day of May, 2023.

JGG
FHW
RAC

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
CORNELIUS E. REGAN, PRO TEM FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 05/03/2023 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-C-109
E-NOTIFIED
29th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable M. Lauren Lemmon (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Evan J. Bergeron (Relator)
Jeigh L. Britton (Relator)

MAILED
L. Gerome Smith (Respondent)
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 26038
New Orleans, LA 70186