Latosha Thiele and Susanne Gioielle Versus Lisa Pembo

LATOSHA THIELE AND SUSANNE GIOIELLE NO. 23-CA-213

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

LISA PEMBO COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 837-680, DIVISION "E"
HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI, JUDGE PRESIDING

March 13, 2024

JUDE G. GRAVOIS
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART
JGG
SJW
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
LATOSHA THIELE AND SUSANNE GIOIELLE
Arita M. L. Bohannan

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
LISA PEMBO
Erin A. Fisher

GRAVOIS, J.

Defendant/appellant, Lisa Pembo, appeals the trial court’s March 10, 2023

judgment which issued a permanent injunction against her in favor of

plaintiffs/appellees, Latosha Thiele and Susanne Gioiello, and Ms. Thiele’s son

Bryson Bordelon, found Ms. Pembo to be in contempt of court for violating a

temporary restraining order, sentenced Ms. Pembo to six months in jail without

bond, and ordered that Ms. Pembo undergo a mental health evaluation. For the

reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment insofar as it issues a permanent

injunction in favor of Bryson. Additionally, we reverse the judgment insofar as it

holds Ms. Pembo in contempt of court, sentences her to six months in jail without

bond, and orders her to undergo a mental health evaluation. We, however, affirm

the judgment in all other respects.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 13, 2023, Latosha Thiele and Susanne Gioiello1 filed a petition

for a temporary restraining order, and for preliminary and permanent injunctions,

against defendant Lisa Pembo. Plaintiffs alleged that on October 31, 2022, Ms.

Pembo drove to plaintiffs’ home and made verbal threats against their lives.

Plaintiffs asserted that Ms. Pembo told them, “I’m coming for you” and “I’ll see

you under concrete.” Thereafter, on December 3, 2022, Ms. Pembo’s daughter,

Jordan Pembo, attacked plaintiffs and was subsequently charged with attempted

second degree murder, battery, and aggravated criminal damage to property. In

their petition, plaintiffs asserted that they feared for their safety and requested that

an ex parte temporary restraining order be issued prohibiting Ms. Pembo from: 1)

abusing, harassing, stalking, following, tracking, monitoring, or threatening

plaintiffs; 2) contacting plaintiffs in any manner; 3) going within 100 yards of

1
In the petition, plaintiff’s name is spelled “Gioielle;” however, at the hearing on this
matter, she spells her name “Gioiello.”

23-CA-213 1

plaintiffs’ residence; 4) going to Ms. Thiele’s place of employment and interfering

in any way; and 5) damaging any of plaintiffs’ belongings. On February 14, 2023,

the trial court granted the temporary restraining order and set a rule to show cause

hearing for February 23, 2023. Because Ms. Pembo was not served with the rule

to show cause order prior to February 23, 2023, the matter was reset to March 7,

2023.2

At the March 7, 2023 hearing on plaintiffs’ petition for preliminary and

permanent injunction, both Ms. Thiele and Ms. Gioiello testified. Ms. Thiele

testified that she has a son, Bryson Bordelon, and Bryson’s father, Todd Bordelon,

is engaged to Jordan Pembo, Ms. Pembo’s daughter. Ms. Thiele met Ms. Pembo

for the first time on October 31, 2022, when Ms. Pembo came to Ms. Gioiello’s

residence in a “rage,” and threatened Ms. Thiele’s life. Ms. Thiele testified that

she recorded Ms. Pembo on her cell phone as Ms. Pembo yelled “I’m coming for

you” and said she would see the parities under the concrete. The video was

admitted into evidence and played for the court. Ms. Thiele testified that she was

frightened by this event, as was Bryson who was present at the time. Following

the event, Bryson texted his father, “[t]hat scared me.” Ms. Thiele testified that

Jordan Pembo is currently incarcerated for the attempted murder of Ms. Thiele,

and as a result of that attempt, Ms. Thiele is currently in a wheelchair. Ms. Thiele

stated that she is requesting that she be granted the relief as prayed for in her

petition, that Ms. Pembo be ordered to stay away from her, her mom, Bryson and

his school, and that Ms. Pembo be prohibited from attending any court hearings

unless she is under issue of a subpoena.

2
On February 24, 2023, the trial court signed a Louisiana Uniform Abuse Prevention
Order against Ms. Pembo effective until March 7, 2023. The Order of Protection granted the
same relief as provided in the February 14, 2023 temporary restraining order and additionally
prohibited Ms. Pembo from going within 100 yards of plaintiffs and from contacting plaintiffs’
family members and acquaintances.

23-CA-213 2

Ms. Gioiello testified that the video played for the court was an accurate

reflection of what occurred on October 31, 2022. When she first saw Ms. Pembo,

she did not know who she was. Upon learning who she was, Ms. Gioiello became

afraid for her and her daughter. She testified that she is seeking injunctive relief

because she is afraid for her life and of irreparable harm and injury to her and her

family.

Ms. Pembo, who appeared pro se at the hearing, testified that the video

shown to the court was of her in front of Ms. Gioiello’s home.

Following their testimony, counsel for plaintiffs requested that a permanent

injunction be granted, and that the stay away order include Ms. Pembo’s

attendance at court hearings “in light of what had happened at the criminal hearing

this week.” When the trial judge asked what had occurred, plaintiffs’ counsel

explained that plaintiffs attended a criminal court hearing in Jordan Pembo’s case,

and Ms. Pembo also attended, even though she had been served with the temporary

restraining order. The trial judge then told plaintiffs’ counsel to put the case “back

on.” Ms. Thiele testified that Ms. Pembo attended a criminal hearing the previous

Friday and sat in the same row as plaintiffs, but on the opposite side. Ms. Thiele

testified that she felt intimidated and was upset by Ms. Pembo’s attendance.

In a written judgment rendered on March 10, 2023, the trial court issued an

indefinite permanent injunction applicable to plaintiffs and Bryson that prohibited

Ms. Pembo from: 1) harassing, abusing, stalking, following, tracking, monitoring,

or threatening the protected persons, including using any force reasonably expected

to cause bodily injury; 2) contacting the protected persons; 3) going within 1000

feet of plaintiffs and Bryson; 4) going within 1000 feet of both plaintiffs’

residences; 5) going to Ms. Thiele’s place of employment; and 6) damaging the

parties’ belongings. The judgment ordered that the protective order apply to all

areas including the courthouse and any and all hearings for which Ms. Pembo is

23-CA-213 3

not subpoenaed. The court ordered Ms. Pembo to pay plaintiffs’ court costs and

attorney’s fees. The trial court also found Ms. Pembo to be in contempt of court

for violating the temporary restraining order on March 3, 2023, after being served

with the temporary restraining order on March 1, 2023. As a result, the court

sentenced Ms. Pembo to six months in jail without bond and ordered that she

undergo a mental health evaluation for alcohol abuse and anger issues while

incarcerated. If she could not undergo the evaluation while incarcerated, she was

ordered to do so immediately upon her release.

Soon thereafter, on March 13, 2023, Ms. Pembo filed an ex parte motion and

order to amend judgment and vacate the March 7, 2023 contempt finding, arguing

that no notice to show cause was ever filed or served upon her prior to the finding

of contempt. On March 14, 2023, plaintiffs filed a rule for contempt and other

relief, arguing that Ms. Pembo should be held in contempt for violating the

temporary restraining order when she went to the criminal hearing on March 3,

2023. On that same day, Ms. Pembo filed a notice of appeal of the March 10, 2023

judgment which was granted on March 16, 2023. Ms. Pembo subsequently

withdrew her ex parte motion and order to amend judgment and vacate the March

7, 2023 contempt finding.

On March 21, 2023, this Court issued an Order in response to Ms. Pembo’s

“Request for Expedited Consideration and for Stay,” staying Ms. Pembo’s

sentence and ordering that she be immediately released from parish prison.

This appeal followed.

On appeal, Ms. Pembo argues the following assignments of error:

1) The trial court erred in granting the temporary restraining order since
there was no immediate threat of harm;

2) The trial court erred in granting the temporary restraining order since
there was no certification of counsel as to notice, attempted notice, or
reasons notice need not be given to Ms. Pembo;

23-CA-213 4

3) The trial court erred in modifying the temporary restraining order on its
own accord to include prohibiting Ms. Pembo from going within 100
yards of plaintiffs;

4) The trial court erred in granting the permanent injunction in favor of
Bryson Bordelon, who was not a party;
5) The trial court erred in ordering Ms. Pembo to undergo a mental health
evaluation;
6) The trial court erred in finding Ms. Pembo to be in contempt without
giving her notice at least 48 hours prior to a rule to show cause hearing;

7) The trial court erred in finding Ms. Pembo in contempt when a different
trial court judge said she could remain in the criminal hearing;
8) The trial court erred in sentencing Ms. Pembo to six months in jail;
9) The trial court erred in ordering the parties to appear before the trial
court on plaintiffs’ rule for contempt after the record was lodged; and

10) The trial court erred by not granting Ms. Pembo’s exception of res
judicata.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS ONE, TWO, AND THREE

In her first three assignments of error, Ms. Pembo argues that the trial court

erred in granting the temporary restraining order since it did not comply with the

requirements set forth in La. C.C.P. art. 3603, et seq. Ms. Pembo argues that

plaintiffs failed to give her proper notice that they were filing the temporary

restraining order, and the trial court erred in granting the temporary restraining

order without notice since plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements set forth in La.

C.C.P. art. 3603. Additionally, the trial court did not comply with La. C.C.P. art.

3604 because it failed to state why it granted the temporary restraining order

without notice or hearing. Ms. Pembo asserts that the trial court violated La.

C.C.P. art. 3607 when it modified the temporary restraining order to prohibit Ms.

Pembo from going within 100 yards of plaintiffs without notice or a hearing.

Finally, Ms. Pembo argues that she should be awarded damages for the wrongful

issuance of the temporary restraining order pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 3608.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3612(A), which governs the

review of the granting or denial of a temporary restraining order, provides: “There

23-CA-213 5

shall be no appeal from an order relating to a temporary restraining order.” Should

a party be aggrieved by the granting of a temporary restraining order, the party

may seek review by way of an application for supervisory writs to the court of

appeal. Lepine v. Lepine, 17-45 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/15/17), 223 So.3d 666, 672;

Harper v. Harper, 00-1425 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01), 777 So.2d 1275, 1278, writ

denied, 01-0768 (La. 5/11/01), 792 So.2d 736. In this case, Ms. Pembo did not

raise these issues before the trial court and did not file an application for

supervisory writs with this Court.

Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 3612(A), Ms. Pembo’s assignments of error

regarding the temporary restraining order are not properly before this Court for

review on appeal. Accordingly, these assignments of error will not be considered.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR

In her fourth assignment of error, Ms. Pembo argues that the trial court erred

in granting the permanent injunction in favor of Bryson Bordelon. She asserts that

Bryson never petitioned the court for an injunction, never signed an affidavit

alleging the reasons for such, and never intervened in any case requesting

injunctive relief against Ms. Pembo. Ms. Pembo argues that the trial court’s sua

sponte act of adding a non-party is a violation of La. C.C.P. art. 3607. She argues

that there is no evidence to support the trial court’s decision to include Bryson in

the permanent injunction.3

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3601(A) provides: “An injunction

shall be issued in cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may otherwise

result to the applicant, or in other cases specifically provided by law.” An

injunction is a harsh, drastic, and extraordinary remedy, and should only issue

where the mover is threatened with irreparable loss or injury without an adequate

3
On appeal, Ms. Pembo does not argue that the trial court erred in granting the
permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs.

23-CA-213 6

remedy at law. Bourgeois v. Bazil, 18-676 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/24/19), 271 So.3d

341, 348. Irreparable injury means the moving party cannot be adequately

compensated in money damages for the injury or suffers injuries which cannot be

measured by pecuniary standards. Zeringue v. St. James Par. Sch. Bd., 13-444 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 11/19/13), 130 So.3d 356, 359.

The issuance of a permanent injunction takes place only after a trial on the

merits in which the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. The

appellate court reviews the granting or denial of a permanent injunction under the

manifest error standard of review. Zeringue, 130 So.3d at 358-59; Mary Moe,

L.L.C. v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 03-2220 (La. 4/14/04), 875 So.2d 22, 29. This

standard recognizes that the trier of fact is in a better position to evaluate the

credibility of witnesses and make factual determinations than is a reviewing court.

Parish Nat. Bank v. Ott, 02-1562 (La. 2/25/03), 841 So.2d 749, 753.

Upon review, we find that the trial court erred in granting the permanent

junction in favor of Bryson. In the petition for temporary restraining order and

preliminary and permanent injunctions, Bryson was not a named party, and

plaintiffs did not seek any injunctive relief in favor of Bryson.4 It was not until the

hearing on March 7, 2023 that Ms. Pembo became aware that plaintiffs were

requesting that the permanent injunction be granted in favor of Bryson as well.

Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in granting the permanent injunction

in favor of Bryson, and we reverse the portion of the permanent injunction which

grants relief to Bryson, a non-party.

4
Further, the Order of Protection issued by the trial court on February 24, 2023
prohibited Ms. Pembo from contacting plaintiffs’ family members, but it did not list Bryson as a
protected person.

23-CA-213 7

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, AND EIGHT

In assignments of error numbers five, six, seven and eight, Ms. Pembo

argues that the trial court erred by finding her in contempt of court, sentencing her

to six months in jail without bond, and ordering that she undergo a mental health

evaluation for alcohol abuse and anger issues. Ms. Pembo contends that she was

never provided notice of the contempt charge or that a contempt hearing would be

occurring, in violation of La. C.C.P. art. 225.

Notably, on appeal, plaintiffs do not contest that Ms. Pembo did not have

notice that they were seeking that she be held in contempt of court.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 224 defines a constructive

contempt as “any contempt other than a direct one,” and delineates a number of

acts that constitute a constructive contempt, including the following: “wilful [sic]

disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the

court.” The procedures to be followed in charging and adjudicating a charge of

constructive contempt are described in La. C.C.P. art. 225. Article 225 requires 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, 1071.5

5
La. C.C.P. art. 225(A) provides:
A. 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 guilty 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. A person charged with committing a constructive contempt of a
court of appeal may be found guilty thereof and punished therefor after
receiving a notice to show cause, by brief, to be filed not less than forty-eight
hours from the date the person receives such notice why he should not be
found guilty of contempt and punished accordingly. The person so charged
shall be granted an oral hearing on the charge if he submits a written request
to the clerk of the appellate court within forty-eight hours after receiving
notice of the charge. Such notice from the court of appeal may be sent by
registered or certified mail or may be served by the sheriff. In all other cases,
a certified copy of the motion, and of the rule to show cause, shall be served

23-CA-213 8

In the present case, no rule to show cause was issued describing the facts

alleged to constitute Ms. Pembo’s contempt and no notice was given to Ms. Pembo

at least 48 hours before the hearing. Due to this failure to comply with the

requirements provided in La. C.C.P. art. 225, the trial court was without authority

to conduct a contempt rule against Ms. Pembo or to issue a judgment pursuant to

such proceedings. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of contempt, the

resulting sentence of six months in jail, and the order to attend a mental health

evaluation.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS NINE AND TEN

In Ms. Pembo’s final two assignments of error, she argues that the trial court

erred when it ordered the parties to appear before the trial court on plaintiffs’ rule

for contempt and for other relief after the record was lodged, and the trial court

erred when it denied her exception of res judicata. The record reveals that on

March 28, 2023, Ms. Pembo filed a motion to stay plaintiffs’ rule for contempt and

for other relief filed on March 14, 2023. The record is devoid of any ruling on her

motion to stay or any ruling on plaintiffs’ rule for contempt. Further the record

before us does not contain Ms. Pembo’s exception of res judicata, nor any ruling

by the trial court on the exception. An appellate court must render its judgment

upon the record on appeal. La. C.C.P. art. 2164. Therefore, review of these

matters is not properly before this court and will not be considered.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s March 10, 2023 judgment is

reversed in part and affirmed in part. The trial court’s judgment is reversed insofar

as it issues a permanent junction in favor of Bryson Bordelon. The trial court’s

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.
(Emphasis added.)

23-CA-213 9

judgment is also reversed insofar as it finds Ms. Pembo in contempt of court, her

resulting sentence, and the order that she undergo a mental health evaluation. In

all other respects, however, the trial court judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART

23-CA-213 10

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
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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 JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
MARCH 13, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

23-CA-213
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE FRANK A. BRINDISI (DISTRICT JUDGE)
ARITA M. L. BOHANNAN (APPELLEE) ERIN A. FISHER (APPELLANT)

MAILED