Shondrell Perrilloux Versus St John the Baptist Parish Government by and Through Its Parish Council of St John the Baptist Parish

SHONDRELL PERRILLOUX NO. 24-CA-280

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

ST JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH COURT OF APPEAL
GOVERNMENT BY AND THROUGH ITS
PARISH COUNCIL OF ST JOHN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
BAPTIST PARISH

ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 81,208, DIVISION "B"
HONORABLE NGHANA LEWIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

October 18, 2024

JUDE G. GRAVOIS
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois

REVERSED; SUIT DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AT APPELLEE’S
COSTS
JGG
SMC
FHW

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH GOVERNMENT
Ike Spears

PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
SHONDRELL PERRILLOUX
In Proper Person

GRAVOIS, J.

Defendant/appellant, the St. John the Baptist Parish Government by and

through its Parish Council of St. John the Baptist Parish (“the Council”), appeals a

judgment rendered on April 19, 2024 in favor of plaintiff/appellee, Shondrell

Perrilloux, and against the Council, granting plaintiff’s “Writ of Mandamus and/or

Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief.” The court ruled that the

Council violated the Louisiana Open Meetings Law, La. R.S. 42:11, et seq., during

its properly noticed and open November 28 and December 12, 2023 Council

meetings, by: 1) “not permitting reasonably adequate time for public comment

during its November 28, 2023 meeting;” and 2) “not permitting members of the

public speaking during the public comments section of the December 13 [sic],

20231 meeting to ‘yield the floor.’”

On appeal, the Council argues that the court erred when it declared that the

Council prohibited public comment and/or failed to provide reasonably adequate

time for public comment during its November 28 and December 12, 2023 public

meetings. The Council also argues that the court erred when it concluded that the

Council is required, under the Open Meetings Law, to permit members of the

public to yield their time to other members of the public during the public

comment period. The Council finally argues that the court erred in enjoining the

Council from prohibiting members of the public from yielding their time during

the public comment period of the Council meetings and from interfering with

members of the public seeking to offer public comment during the public comment

period, because Ms. Perrilloux failed to carry her burden of proof for such relief

and because such relief is not allowed under the Open Meetings Law.

1
The videos of the Council meetings entered into evidence indicate that this meeting
actually took place on December 12, 2023, not on December 13, 2023.

24-CA-280 1

For the following reasons, we find merit to the assignments of error.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment of April 19, 2024 in its entirety

and dismiss this suit with prejudice at plaintiff/appellee’s costs.

FACTS

On December 21, 2023, plaintiff/appellee Shondrell Perrilloux, a citizen of

St. John the Baptist Parish, filed an “Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus

and/or Temporary Restraining and Injunctive Relief with Memorandum in

Support,” against defendant/appellant, St. John the Baptist Parish Government by

and Through Its Parish Council of St. John the Baptist Parish (“the Council”),

alleging that the Council violated the provisions of the Louisiana Open Meetings

Law, particularly La. R.S. 42:12, 42:16, 42:17, and 42:18.2 The amended petition

alleged that the Council “prohibited public comment by refusing [petitioner] timely

access into [a] Council meeting, interfering with the allotted time for public

comments, violating Robert[’s] Rules [of Order] by over speaking during public

comment[,] by refusing petitioner to yield her 3 minutes to another citizen, [and

by] threats to be arrested and instructed to be exited out of [the] Council meeting

without valid reason but as retaliation.”

Petitioner prayed that the court “compel the Council to obey [the] Open

Meeting Laws, follow Robert[’s] Rules [of Order] and allow public comments

after each agenda item or allow rebut[tal] after each agenda item prior to the vote

of the Council on [the] subject matter.” She further prayed that the court “enjoin

[the Council] from continuing to suppress the voice of its constituents,” for a

temporary restraining order and a writ of mandamus with injunctive relief

prohibiting the Council from banning plaintiff from Council meetings without

2
Petitioner’s original petition for writ of mandamus, filed on December 13, 2023, was
found to state no cause of action, following the sustaining of defendant’s exception of no cause
of action in a judgment signed on December 18, 2023. The judgment allowed petitioner time to
amend her petition to state a cause of action.

24-CA-280 2

“proper legal justification,” for all costs and damages, and that the Council allow

petitioner entrance into all public meetings.

The accompanying memorandum in support of the amended petition alleged

that at the November 28, 2023 public meeting of the Council, held at the Council

Chamber in LaPlace, Louisiana, Ms. Perrilloux was denied her right to speak

during the public comment period pursuant to the Open Meetings Law. The

memorandum further alleged that on December 12, 2023, at another public

meeting of the Council, Chairman Michael Wright abused his authority by

prohibiting public comments to continue when members of the public desired to

address the Council. Ms. Perrilloux alleges that on this date, she was prohibited

from entering the Council chamber by a Sheriff’s deputy at the instruction of

Chairman Wright. She argued that the Council’s practices violated La. R.S.

42:14(D), which requires that a public body shall allow a public comment period at

any point in the meeting prior to action on an agenda item upon which a vote is to

be taken.

The matter was heard on February 15, 2024. Ms. Perrilloux called three

witnesses: Parish President Jaclyn Hotard, Council Chairman Michael Wright, and

herself. Both President Hotard and Chairman Wright testified to their recollection

of the pertinent public meetings held on November 28 and December 12, 2023,

where Ms. Perrilloux alleges the Council violated the Open Meetings Law.

Additionally, both testified that the Council has formally adopted “Robert’s Rules

of Order” to govern the conduct of Council meetings, though which particular

edition thereof was not specified, nor were Robert’s Rules of Order introduced into

evidence, in whole or in part, by either party.

24-CA-280 3

The parties stipulated to the authenticity and admission of video recordings

of the October 24, November 28, and December 12, 2023 Council meetings, which

were then played for the court.3

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ruled from the bench in favor of

Ms. Perrilloux, giving oral reasons for the ruling. A written judgment was signed

on April 19, 2024, incorporating written reasons therein which differ in some ways

from the oral reasons, concluding as follows:4

Defendant twice violated open meeting laws, by not permitting
reasonably adequate time for public comment during its November
28, 2023 meeting and not permitting members of the public speaking
during the public comments section of the December 13, 20235
meeting to “yield the floor”.

Wherefore,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there
be judgment in favor of Shondrell Perrilloux and against St John the

3
Although a video of the October 24, 2023 Council meeting was introduced into
evidence, the trial court’s reasons for judgment do not grant relief relative to anything that
happened at this meeting.
4
The trial court, in its oral reasons for ruling, cited La. R.S. 42:12, which directs that the
provisions of the Open Meetings Law should be construed liberally. Next, the court noted that
the Parish operates in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order, as testified to by Ms. Hotard and
Mr. Wright. The court also recognized that the Council allows public comment globally, not at a
particular time, but also that the Council’s agenda is published to the public prior to the meeting,
so that citizens know when, during the meeting, public comment occurs.
The court, however, found exception to the speed at which Chairman Wright closed
public comment at one of the meetings, citing the video evidence. The court noted that Mr.
Wright closed public comment within seconds of the opening of the public comment period. The
court further noted that Ms. Perrilloux entered the Council chambers 15 minutes later, and
attempted to explain why she was late, but was not allowed that opportunity. The court noted
that Ms. Perrilloux’s conduct on that occasion was disruptive. However, the court found that
“the law requires that there be generous opportunity for the public to participate” and thus Ms.
Perrilloux was not given an opportunity to explain why she was not in Council chambers “within
the first two seconds.” The court further found that there was no testimony to rebut Ms.
Perrilloux’s claim that she was prohibited from entering the meeting by security and/or law
enforcement personnel.
On the second point, the court found that Robert’s Rules of Order “clearly allows
yielding.” The video evidence, the court explained, showed citizens being prohibited from
yielding their allotted speaking time to other citizens with no explanation for the prohibition.
The court found that when the Council deviates from or augments Robert’s Rules of Order, it
should be “clarified” so that the public understands why they are not allowed to yield their time.
While the court declined to issue a restraining order against the Council, the court said that it was
going to direct that the Parish “particularize and articulate” its policy regarding public comment.
The court stated that it would “order” the Parish to follow Robert’s Rules of Order, because the
Parish President had testified that the Council had adopted those rules.
5
As noted above, the videos of the Council meeting entered into evidence indicate that
this meeting took place on December 12, 2023, not on December 13, 2023.

24-CA-280 4

Baptist Parish declaring that the actions of St. John the Baptist Parish
Council, in prohibiting public comment and/or failing to provide
reasonably adequate time for public comment, during its November
28, 2023 and December 13, 2023 parish council meetings, violated
open meetings laws; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that St. John the Baptist Parish is enjoined from
prohibiting members of the public from yielding their time during the
public comment period of parish council meetings, and is enjoined
from interfering with members of the public seeking to offer public
comment and/or to yield their time during the public comment period
of parish council meetings, in accordance with Robert’s Rules of
Order; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that court costs of $552.32 are hereby cast against St.
John the Baptist and shall be reimbursed to Shondrell Perrilloux,
within sixty days of signing of this judgment.

This timely appeal followed.

LAW

La. C.C.P. art. 3863 provides, in pertinent part: “A writ of mandamus may

be directed to a public officer to compel the performance of a ministerial duty

required by law … .”

La. C.C.P. art. 2592(6) authorizes a writ of mandamus to be handled in a

summary proceeding. Under a writ of mandamus, a public officer may be directed

to perform a ministerial duty required by law. Turner v. EBR P. School Bd., 17-

1769 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/4/18), 252 So.3d 990, 992, citing La. C.C.P. arts. 3861 and

3863. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which “may be issued in all

cases where the law provides no relief by ordinary means or where the delay

involved in obtaining ordinary relief may cause injustice.” Jazz Casino Co., L.L.C.

v. Bridges, 16-1663 (La. 5/3/17), 223 So.3d 488, 492, citing La. C.C.P. art. 3862.

We review a trial court’s decision regarding a request for a writ of mandamus

under an abuse of discretion standard. Constr. Diva, L.L.C. v. New Orleans

Aviation Bd., 16-0566 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/14/16), 206 So.3d 1029, 1037, writ

denied, 17-0083 (La. 2/24/17), 216 So.3d 59.

24-CA-280 5

A ministerial duty is “a simple, definite duty arising under conditions

admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law.” Hoag v. State, 04-857 (La.

12/1/04), 889 So.2d 1019, 1024. A writ of mandamus is not an appropriate

procedure where there is an element of discretion left to the public officer.

Vandenweghe v. Par. of Jefferson, 11-52 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/24/11), 70 So.3d 51,

58, writ denied, 11-1333 (La. 9/30/11), 71 So.3d 289. The party seeking the writ

has the burden of proof to establish a clear and specific right to compel the

performance of a ministerial duty. State through Morrell v. City of New Orleans

through Landrieu, 17-0110 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/21/17), 234 So.3d 1071, 1080, writ

denied sub nom. State through Orleans Par. Criminal Dist. Court v. City of New

Orleans through Landrieu, 18-0116 (La. 3/9/18), 237 So.3d 1192. See also Lewis

v. St. John the Baptist Par. Through Cador, 22-43 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/19/22), 351

So.3d 734, 739.

As a general rule, a trial court’s judgment on a writ of mandamus is

reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, while the court’s factual findings

are subject to manifest error review. Talley v. Louisiana Dep’t of Transp. & Dev.,

22-0983 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/24/23), 361 So.3d 1041, 1050, writ denied, 23-00557

(La. 6/7/23), 361 So.3d 976. However, questions of law, such as the proper

interpretation of a statute, are reviewed de novo. Louisiana Municipal Association

v. State, 04-0227 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So.2d 809, 836.

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Adequate period of time for public comment

In its first assignment of error, the Council argues that the trial court erred in

ruling that the Council violated the Open Meetings Law when it “prohibit[ed]

public comment and/or fail[ed] to provide reasonably adequate time for public

comment, during its November 28, 2023 and December 13 [sic], 2023 parish

council meetings.”

24-CA-280 6

The Open Meetings Law, La. R.S. 42:11, et seq., applies to the duly noticed

November 28 and December 12, 2023 meetings of the Council. It is not optional.

La. R.S. 42:12, 42:14. The primary purpose of the Open Meetings Law and the

constitutional provision ensuring the right of citizens to participate in the

deliberations of public bodies is to protect citizens from secret decisions made

without any opportunity for public input. Lewnau v. Board of Supervisors of

Southern State University, 19-0943 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/9/20), 295 So.3d 419, 424,

writ denied, 20-00240 (La. 5/1/20), 295 So.3d 937. Its provisions are to be

construed liberally. La. R.S. 42:12.

La. R.S. 42:14(D) requires that “each public body conducting a meeting

which is subject to the notice requirements of R.S. 42:19(A) shall allow a public

comment period at any point in the meeting prior to action on an agenda item upon

which a vote is to be taken.”6

The testimony and evidence admitted at the hearing established that the

Council’s practice is to allow a period of public comment on all agenda items at

the beginning of each meeting, globally.7 The Council’s agenda is published prior

to the meeting, with the public comment period clearly noticed therein. The videos

of each Council meeting entered into evidence showed that everyone present in the

Council chambers was notified by the Chairman, orally and on the TV screens

behind the Council, that the public comment period was open, that if anyone

desired to speak, they were to approach the podium, and that each citizen would

have three minutes to discuss agenda items only.8 We find that the Council’s

6
School boards, which are specifically excepted from this provision, are subject to La.
R.S. 42:15.
7
There was also testimony that the public is allowed an additional comment period on
ordinances that are before the Council prior to a vote being taken thereon.
8
The videos alternate between two viewpoints. The first viewpoint looks directly at the
dais where the Council is seated at the front of the room. Each Council member present is
visible, along with large TV monitors above their heads, mounted on the wall, that contain text
describing the particular agenda item then in front of the Council. The second viewpoint is
looking outward from the dais, focused on the podium where members of the public, and other

24-CA-280 7

scheduling of the public comment period, globally at the beginning of the

meetings, before specific agenda items are brought up for debate and voting by the

Council, is reasonable and fully complies with the Open Meetings Law,

specifically La. R.S. 42:14(D).

The trial court specifically ruled that the Open Meetings Law violations

occurred at the November 28 and December 12 meetings, because the Council did

not allow Ms. Perrilloux adequate time to comment. This Court has reviewed the

video evidence of the October 24, November 28, and December 12, 2023 duly

noticed Council meetings. After considering such video evidence, we find that

these factual conclusions are manifestly erroneous.

The video of the November 28 meeting shows that the Council Chairman

announced the start of the period of public comment as published in the Council’s

agenda of the meeting, which was available to members of the public prior to the

meeting. A citizen, Ms. Banner, was recognized by the Council Chairman. She

stood at the podium addressing the Council regarding an ethics claim issue. Ms.

Perrilloux also got up and stood at the podium, invoking “Robert Rules” about

yielding of time, and spoke for her entire allotted time without interruption by the

Council Chairman. When her time was up, another citizen attempted to claim the

floor and yield his time to Ms. Perrilloux, which the Chairman did not allow. After

being repeatedly advised by the Chair that her time was up, and to step away from

the podium, it appears that Ms. Perrilloux became disruptive. The Chairman then

recessed the meeting and called for the Council chambers to be cleared in order to

restore order.

The video evidence also shows that after the recess ended and the meeting

resumed, Ms. Perrilloux again approached the podium when another citizen

speakers doing business before the Council, stand to speak. This view also shows the first three
to four rows of the audience seating.

24-CA-280 8

attempted to yield the floor to her. While the Chairman said he was not allowing

this, Ms. Perrilloux nonetheless was allowed to continue speaking to the Council

uninterrupted, asking them not to decide “the issue tonight.” Her demeanor was

calmer than earlier in the meeting. She spoke until she was finished what she had

to say.

At the December 12, 2023 meeting, the video evidence shows Ms. Perrilloux

entering the area by the podium at the beginning of the meeting, during the roll call

for the Council. She was the first person to address the Council. She asked the

Council to give the public more notice regarding the Council’s commenting

procedures. She asked the Council to change the global comment period before all

agenda items to comments occurring with each agenda item as it comes up for

discussion and a vote, and that the Council allow rebuttal time to the public after

debate on each agenda item. The video shows that Ms. Perrilloux spoke

uninterrupted for her entire allotted time. After she is finished speaking, she left

the podium.

At that point in the video, a man approaches the podium and attempts to

yield his comment time to another citizen, Ms. Crystal. The Council Chair does

not allow him to yield his time, or another citizen to do so. At this point, Ms.

Perrilloux is seen at the podium again, visibly angry, citing “Robert Rules.” The

Council Chair moves to restore order by recessing the meeting and clearing the

chambers, while a security guard approaches Ms. Perrilloux to assist her away

from the podium and out of the room.

Upon review, we find that no violation of the Open Meetings Law occurred

at the November 28 or December 12, 2023 meetings relative to the Council’s duty

under La. R.S. 42:14(D) to provide a period of public comment, and set reasonable

rules and restrictions regarding the public comment period. The video evidence

conclusively shows that at the November 28 meeting, Ms. Perrilloux, who is the

24-CA-280 9

only plaintiff in this suit, addressed the Council twice, once before the recess and

once after, for either her full allotment of time or until she had finished what she

wanted to say, without being stopped. The video of the December 12 meeting also

conclusively shows that Ms. Perrilloux addressed the Council for her full allotment

of time or until she had finished what she wanted to say.

Additionally, Ms. Perrilloux failed in her burden of proof on a writ of

mandamus to show that the Council failed to perform a ministerial duty. Germane

to this issue is the second sentence of La. R.S. 42:14(D), which states that “[t]he

governing body may adopt reasonable rules and restrictions regarding such

comment period.” The only “ministerial duty” set forth in La. R.S. 42:14(D) is

that the Council must provide a “reasonable” public comment period prior to

voting on agenda items, which it clearly did at the meetings in question. The

statute does not specify how the public comment period must be structured or

when it should occur at the Council meeting, except that it must be prior to voting

on agenda items. Ms. Perrilloux made no showing that the Council’s preference to

place a global public comment period prior to all agenda items runs afoul of La.

42:14(D).

Ms. Perrilloux has also failed to show that the public comment rules and

restrictions adopted by the Council are unreasonable. Both times she addressed the

Council at the November 28 meeting, before the meeting was recessed and after it

was resumed, Ms. Perrilloux spoke, uninterrupted, for her entire allotment of time,

or until she had finished what she wanted to say. The evidence was conclusive that

she and others were not prevented from speaking for their allotted time during the

public comment period. The trial court’s factual finding that the Council closed

the public comment period “too quickly” is manifestly erroneous. Though the

Chair appeared to close the comment period almost immediately at the November

28 meeting, Ms. Perrilloux and others in fact spoke, immediately thereafter,

24-CA-280 10

unimpeded. The same occurred at the December 12 meeting, as noted above.9

Thus, Ms. Perrilloux did not bear her burden of proof in this regard.10

Accordingly, under the particular facts and circumstances present in this case, we

find that the trial court erred in granting the mandamus relief requested by Ms.

Perrilloux.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

“Yielding the Floor/Yielding of Time”

In this assignment of error, the Council argues that the trial court erred in

finding that the Council violated the Open Meetings Law when it refused to allow

citizens, during the public comment period, to yield their speaking time to Ms.

Perrilloux or other members of the public. Ms. Perrilloux argues that Robert’s

Rules of Order establishes this right, which the Council violated.

President Hotard and Chairman Wright testified that at some point in the

past, the Council adopted Robert’s Rules of Order for its parliamentary operation.

In the absence of statutory authority, or written by-laws and rules, it is appropriate

for a public body to adopt and operate under Robert’s Rules of Order Newly

Revised, Scott, Foresman & Co. (1970). Op. Atty. Gen., No. 93-457, Sept. 17,

1993. The trial court specifically based its ruling that the Council violated the

9
As noted above, the video of the October 24, 2023 meeting was also introduced into
evidence, but was not addressed by the trial court in its reasons for ruling. At that meeting, the
public comment period is opened and closed within seconds at around 9:05 minutes into the
meeting. However, no citizen appears at the podium to speak. Ms. Perrilloux arrives in camera
view in the audience and takes a seat around 18:36. She stands up and interrupts Mr. Montz,
who was speaking, at around 36:29, but is told the public comment was closed, and she was not
allowed to explain why she was late. She leaves, but only after seemingly insulting the
Chairman.
The trial court stated in its oral reasons for judgment that Ms. Perrilloux’s statement in
her petition and at trial that she was prevented from entering the council chambers by security
was unchallenged. However, as petitioner, Ms. Perrilloux bore the burden of proving her claims.
Her claim that she was prevented from entering the Council Chambers by security is therefore
uncorroborated. It does not appear, though, that the trial court based her ruling on the October
24 meeting.
10
We note that Ms. Perrilloux is the only plaintiff in this suit, and thus whether any other
citizen at these Council meetings was aggrieved was not before the trial court, nor is before this
Court in this proceeding.

24-CA-280 11

Open Meetings Law on “Yielding the Floor” through the application of “Robert’s

Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 12th Edition, under the section titled

‘Yielding the Floor’ (pp. 385-386).”

Initially, we note that Robert’s Rules of Order were not introduced into

evidence. La. C.E. art. 202 describes the types of legal matters to which a trial

court is entitled to take judicial notice. This Court was unable to find an instance

in our state’s jurisprudence holding that Robert’s Rules of Order may be admitted

by judicial notice. Additionally, the trial court did not state that it was taking

judicial notice of Robert’s Rules of Order, as is required by La. C.E. art. 202,

which provides for judicial notice of legal matters.11

In any event, we find that Robert’s Rules of Order’s provisions on yielding

the floor do not apply to citizens. This Court has reviewed the pertinent sections in

Robert’s Rules of Order, Revised 12th Edition, pertaining to yielding the floor or

yielding of time.12 As pointed out by the Council in brief, the sections of Robert’s

Rules of Order that pertain to yielding the floor/yielding of time are applicable

only to members of the governing body, not members of the general public.

Robert’s Rules of Order does not allow members of the general public the right to

move the Council or speak in debate or vote on business items, which is the

context in which the Rules address yielding.

11
Further, as pointed out by the Council in brief to this Court, even though the Council
has adopted Robert’s Rules of Order, the Council still retains the right to decide which rules they
choose to follow, citing the St. John the Baptist Parish Home Rule Charter, Article III
Organization. Structure and Distribution of Powers and Functions. Section A. The Governing
Authority: 5. Organization: officers: council secretary: f. The Council shall determine its own
rules and order of business.
12
In its reasons for judgment, the trial court cited to pp. 385-386 of Robert’s Rules of
th
Order, 12 Revised Edition. However, these pages do not pertain to a section on yielding the
floor or yielding of time, but rather pertain to Voting. This Court found mention of “yielding the
floor” in sections 3:31 and 5:8 note 3, neither of which are on pp. 385-386, but rather are found
at pp. 26-27. “Yielding time” is found in section 43:10, within the chapter entitled “Rules
Governing Debate,” which is found on p. 368.

24-CA-280 12

As stated above, La. R.S. 42:14(D) gives the Council discretion to adopt

“reasonable rules and restrictions” for regulating the manner in which public

comment will be held. Consequently, we find that “yielding the floor/yielding of

time” during Council meetings is discretionary to the Council and not mandatory,

and thus is not appropriate for mandamus relief.

Further, Ms. Perrilloux has failed to demonstrate that the Council’s

restriction on citizens yielding the floor/yielding of time to other citizens is

unreasonable. Ms. Perrilloux has failed to show that three minutes of commenting

time per citizen on agenda items is unduly restrictive. The video evidence in this

case showed that citizens who spoke during the public comment period on agenda

items had adequate time, in three minutes, to express their opinions to the Council.

There was some testimony at the hearing that at some unspecified time in the past,

the Council may have allowed citizens to “yield” their time to other citizens during

the public comment period, but the Council had discontinued that practice at some

other unspecified time in the past.

Accordingly, the trial court was manifestly erroneous in its factual finding

that Ms. Perrilloux proved entitlement to a writ of mandamus in this regard, as the

law and the evidence do not support the existence of a citizen’s right, as per the

Open Meetings Law or Robert’s Rules of Order, to yield the floor or yield time to

another citizen during the public comment period at the Council meetings.

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Injunctive relief

In its final assignment of error, the Council argues that because of lack of

proof, the court abused its power when it ordered the Council to not interfere with

members of the public seeking to offer public comment during the public comment

period, and in ordering the Council to allow members of the public to yield time to

others during the public comment period, which the Council argues is not a

24-CA-280 13

mandatory and/or purely ministerial duty, and which infringes on the public body’s

right to make its own reasonable rules and restrictions regarding the public

comment period. The Council argues that this relief goes beyond what is allowed

or contemplated by the Openings Meeting Law.

La. R.S. 42:26 states:

A. In any enforcement proceeding the plaintiff may seek and the court
may grant any or all of the following forms of relief:

(1) A writ of mandamus.

(2) Injunctive relief.
(3) Declaratory judgment.
(4) Judgment rendering the action void as provided in R.S. 42:24.

(5) Judgment awarding civil penalties as provided in R.S. 42:28.

B. In any enforcement proceeding the court has jurisdiction and
authority to issue all necessary orders to require compliance with,
or to prevent noncompliance with, or to declare the rights of parties
under the provisions of this Chapter. Any noncompliance with the
orders of the court may be punished as contempt of court.

C. If a party who brings an enforcement proceeding pursuant to R.S.
42:25 prevails, the party shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees
and other costs of litigation. If such party prevails in part, the
court may award the party reasonable attorney fees or an
appropriate portion thereof.

D. If the court finds that the proceeding was of a frivolous nature and
was brought with no substantial justification, it may award
reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
The trial court granted an injunction against the Council, ruling:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that St. John the Baptist Parish is enjoined from
prohibiting members of the public from yielding their time during the
public comment period of parish council meetings, and is enjoined
from interfering with members of the public seeking to offer public
comment and/or to yield their time during the public comment period
of parish council meetings, in accordance with Robert’s Rules of
Order; and … .

As was established above, Ms. Perrilloux did not bear her burden of proof

that her right to speak before the Council was interfered with, in violation of the

Open Meetings Law, at either the November 28 or the December 12, 2023 Council

24-CA-280 14

meetings. She failed to establish that she was prevented by the Council’s

discretionary rules and restrictions from adequately addressing the Council during

the public comment period of the meetings in question. And as has also been

established above, the citizens who comment on agenda items during the public

comment period of the Council meetings do not have a right to yield the floor or to

yield their time on the floor to other members of the general public during the

public comment period, either under the Open Meetings Law or under Robert’s

Rules of Order, 12th Revised Edition. Accordingly, under the particular facts and

circumstances present in this case, the trial court erred in granting said injunctive

relief against the Council.13

DECREE

For the reasons set forth above, the trial court’s judgment of April 19, 2024

is reversed in its entirety. This suit is dismissed with prejudice at appellee’s costs.

REVERSED; SUIT DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE AT APPELLEE’S COSTS

13
Further, we find that the injunctive language in question is overly broad, and
effectively abrogates the Council’s right, as per La. R.S. 42:14(D), to establish “reasonable rules
and restrictions” regarding the public comment period.

24-CA-280 15

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
OCTOBER 18, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-CA-280
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE NGHANA LEWIS (DISTRICT JUDGE)
BRIDGET A. DINVAUT (APPELLANT) IKE SPEARS (APPELLANT) KEITH GREEN, JR. (APPELLANT)

MAILED
SHONDRELL PERRILLOUX (APPELLEE)
1118 MAIN STREET
LAPLACE, LA 70068