State of Louisiana v. Cedriquze Daitonia Johnson

Judgment rendered March 1, 2023.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 54,945-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

STATE OF LOUISIANA Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

CEDRIQUZE DAITONIA Defendant-Appellant
JOHNSON

*****

Appealed from the
Fourth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2021-NS-033573

Honorable Clarence W. Manning, Judge

*****

CUMMINS AND FITTS, LLC Counsel for Appellant
By: Daniel C. Cummins
Jessica Leigh Fitts
Kay S. Rector

ASHLEY L. SMITH Counsel for Appellee
DAVID F. VERLANDER
Assistant District Attorneys

*****

Before COX, THOMPSON, and ROBINSON, JJ.

COX, J.

This civil appeal arises from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish

of Ouachita, Louisiana. The appellant, Cedriquze Johnson (“Johnson”),

appeals from a final judgment setting his child support payments at $983.70

per month. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s judgment

in part and affirm in part.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Johnson and Matila Adams (“Adams”) had one minor child, C.J., who

was born on December 1, 2016. The pair never married and separated a few

years after C.J. was born. On January 20, 2021, counsel for the State of

Louisiana (the “State”) filed a rule for child and medical support against

Johnson in accordance with the provisions of La. R.S. 46:236.1 on behalf of

the mother. On July 2, 2021, a hearing was held to set child support,

wherein Adams testified that she lived in Shreveport and worked as a payroll

coordinator for LSU Health Shreveport, earning a monthly income of

$3,380.41.

On cross-examination, Johnson testified that he resided in Monroe,

was unemployed, and received unemployment benefits that ended sometime

in January 2021. When asked if he had any other source of income, Johnson

testified that he was in the process of receiving his construction license and

that he used to own several businesses, but the Covid-19 pandemic stopped

operations. Johnson then informed the trial court that he has another child in

New Orleans that receives $176 in monthly support. At the close of the

hearing, Johnson was ordered to pay $190 in support1 for C.J., and a review

hearing was ordered to reassess Johnson’s income.

The review hearing commenced on November 19, 2021. Johnson

testified that he still resides in Monroe and that he owns a home there. He

stated that he pays bills and other utilities with money he earns “here and

there,” and by “hustling.” Johnson testified that he was still unemployed

and had been since his businesses shut down in 2019. He stated that he

attempted to reopen his businesses2 in 2020, but was unable to successfully

do so because of the pandemic. Johnson testified that he was in the process

of finding work as a recruiter for Sports Marketing Agency, an agency in

Florida that scouts athletes for the National Basketball Association

(“NBA”), but alluded to a pending lawsuit and a “gag order”3 which

prevented him working and discussing the matter.

The State then questioned Johnson about his bank accounts. Johnson

explained that he had two accounts at Hancock Whitney, one of which was

in the negative, and the other had $6,956, which belonged to one of his

businesses, CED Johnson Investments, LLC. Johnson testified that he did

1
From the obligation worksheet provided in the record, it appears that the hearing
officer imputed an interim earning capacity or income of $1,257 for Johnson in
calculating support. No objection was filed to the hearing officer’s recommendation.

Johnson was also ordered to pay an additional 5% statutory fee of $9.50, for a
total of $195.50 in monthly child support for C.J., and cash medical support in the
amount of $10.00, plus an additional 5% statutory fee of $0.50, for a total of 10.50,
effective July 1, 2021.
2
Johnson explained that he had two businesses, which included a uniform store
called Uniforms We Trust, which was contracted with a school and closed in 2019; and a
hair supply store called Wholesale Hair Guy, which also closed in 2019. Johnson later
testified that he owned two other businesses, CED Johnson Investments, LLC, and
Perfect and Perfection Global Marketing, LLC.
3
Although Johnson indicated that he was under a “gag order” not to disclose any
information about the lawsuit with the NBA, he did not produce any documentation to
that effect.
2

not have exclusive control of those funds and needed permission from his

business partners to access the money. At the close of testimony, the trial

court imputed $100,000 as Johnson’s annual income and modified monthly

child support from $190 to $937. In its reasoning, the trial court provided:

. . . So, Hearing Officer Green heard this in July, and she
accepted [Johnson’s] testimony that he was out of money and
out of unemployment. She set the review basically to see if he
was—if his businesses were up and running again. He’s
testified today that they’re not. That he had multiple businesses
but sounds like most of it was based around sports or else they
were just stores like the store selling hair. He had a store
selling uniforms that he said he had to close when the schools
quit playing ball. He had a store selling hair that [he] had to
close when the Chinese imports dried up. All that is kind of
coming back at the moment. I’m interested in the business
partnership he had or whatever the LLC partnership whatever
with [Gina] Ford in Miami recruiting for the NBA for twelve
seasons, Sports Marketing. It says at one point he is going
through a multi-[million] dollar court case and then he says he
has a gag order, and he can’t talk about it. He’s got to leave
early to catch a plane. I believe I was told back to Miami. That
he says he paid for with points.

Says he can’t remember how he pays utilities at his house. That
he hustles here and there. Found an investment company with
some money at Hancock Whitney according to the State. At
first, he said he was in the negative and then he said it’s his—he
can’t withdraw money and then he said it’s about to close. At
one point [Johnson] said he buys houses. So, look obviously
you’re not credible. You’re not being truthful. In terms of this
business in Miami, it’s just hard to speculate. Louisiana
actually has a category for scouts of about fifty-eight
thousand—that’s almost certainly grossly low for what you’re
doing. For comparison, if I use the scout category income,
you’d be paying about six fifty a month, but we’ve also got the
stores. We’ve got the buying the houses and I don’t—I don’t
think all of that is gone. . .

Johnson refused to sign the judgment and payor designation form, was

held in contempt and was ordered to return for a revocation hearing that

same day. At the hearing, the judge reviewed the ruling on the matter, and

3

ordered Johnson to sign the judgment.4 Thereafter, Johnson filed an

objection to the November 19 2021, ruling, and a rehearing on the matter

was reset for March 8, 2022.

During the rehearing, Johnson testified that he still resided in

Monroe,5 was unemployed, but later stated that he worked part-time at a

bingo hall, earning approximately $10 an hour, but did not have a steady

source of income. Johnson stated that before his lawsuit with a player he

previously recruited, Zion Williamson (“Williamson”), he primarily worked

as a scout for the NBA, where he would recruit players and sign “sports

marketing bills, like shoe deals, Nike deals, Puma deals, Gatorade, [and]

Powerade,” earning approximately $1,000 to $5,000, depending on the

player he recruited. However, Johnson testified that since the lawsuit, he

struggled to find work, and in an attempt to recruit players again, he flew to

California.

When asked how he funded a flight to California only two days prior

to the hearing, Johnson explained that the parent of a child he was asked to

potentially recruit, market, or brand, paid for his flight and allowed Johnson

to stay in the family’s home.6 The State then introduced two posts Johnson

made while in California: a status that provided, “[m]eeting went well. Got

an invite to Donda Academy Homecoming tonight. This company Facebook

was established in 2019, Perfect and Perfection Global Marketing Agency,”

4
The presiding judge over the revocation hearing disclosed that he knew Johnson
and noted that if Johnson should take an appeal, he would recuse himself from the matter.
5
The State introduced Johnson’s Facebook page into evidence, which indicated
Johnson resided in Orlando, Florida. Johnson testified that he lived in Orlando at one
point, renting a condo, but that he currently resides in Monroe.
6
Although Johnson indicated that he could produce text messages attesting to this
information, he failed to introduce those messages.
4

and a copy of a video showing Johnson at a basketball game. In response,

Johnson stated that while in California, he happened to be invited to an event

associated with Kanye West’s private school,7 and that the family of the

player he stayed with gifted him with floor tickets to a Los Angeles Lakers

and Clippers game.

In addressing Johnson’s lifestyle, income, and employment, the State

introduced several posts from Johnson’s various social media accounts into

evidence. Regarding Johnson’s lifestyle,8 the State introduced the

following:

• October 3, 2021: A picture of Johnson at a Saints game,
captioned: “I need this break. Let’s go Saints.”
• November 7, 2021: A post of Johnson at another Saints
game.
• November 12, 2021: A post of Johnson attending a
basketball game at Louisiana State University (“LSU”),
captioned: “It’s about that time again. . . Here I come
[a]thletes.”
• November 13, 2021: A post of Johnson attending a
basketball game at Southern University and A&M College,
captioned: “[o]n this recruiting trail[.]”

In response, Johnson testified that attorney Jacqueline Scott gave him

tickets to both Saints games and paid for his hotel room as a birthday gift.

He then explained that because of his connections, LeBrent Walker, the

assistant basketball coach for LSU, was able to give him tickets to the game.

Although Johnson testified that he attended the latter games for personal

entertainment, he indicated that if he noticed a potential client, he would

7
It is not clear from the record whether West personally invited Johnson to the
event or if a member of West’s team invited him, but he indicated that Kanye West
knows his name and that he met West approximately 15 years ago.
8
The State also introduced several pictures of Johnson with various celebrities
and socialites, including Michael Jordan; NBA Commissioner Adam Silver; NBA players
Zion Williamson and Blake Griffin; and Jay-Z.

5

have pursued it.9 Specifically, he stated, “[a]nytime I go to a game, it could

be through work, you know. So, if I go to a high school game and I see a

player, I’m going to try and talk to the parents or something like that or do

something to try to, you know, get some kind of lead way and try to make it

happen. . .”

Regarding Johnson’s income and employment,10 the State introduced

the following:

• March 2020: A picture of a marijuana farm, captioned:
“This plant completely changed my life. I had some horrible
moments in my life dealing with this plant. I had some great
moments in my life with this plant, but on this day this plant
will change my life. Thank you for this opportunity[,]” and
“It on now. Cannabis plant. Just partnered with the plug.
God is awesome.”
• January 21, 2021: A post which provided: “Back at it. First
day back at work.”
• August 9, 2021: A post which provided, in pertinent part:
“After all this excitement, coming back to the NBA. . .”
• October 19, 2021: A post which provided: “So, I’m paying
drivers two hundred dollars ($200) a day in New Orleans.
Paid once a week. I can’t find no one on Facebook. How
the [sic] you guys living and make it right?”
• November 12, 2021: A post which mentioned a job alert for
Cracker Barrell.11

9
Although Johnson indicated that he attended the LSU game for entertainment, he
later testified that he texted LeBrent Walker about the game, inquiring about a seven-
foot-tall player. We further note that no text messages were ever produced confirming
that Johnson was gifted the tickets to the LSU game.
10
The State also introduced a post from May 2019, which provided, in part,
“climbing my way up.” Johnson stated that this post was made before his lawsuit against
Williamson gained traction and that shortly after, he “lost everything.”
11
Johnson stated that he helped a friend advertise her business because of his large
social media platform. He testified that while he was not working during this time, he did
not want to apply for this job because it wasn’t enough money and he wanted to continue
working as a recruiter.

The State also mentioned a similar post Johnson made, advertising business for a
woman selling balloon arrangements. Johnson again stated that he uses his platform as a
means to help others advertise their services.

6

To this, Johnson testified that because he has a large social media

presence, he is often asked to advertise or promote business ventures, which

is why he made the March 2020 and October 19, 2021, posts. With respect

to the March 2020 post, Johnson explained that he attempted to form a

partnership with this company and that he was asked to “market their brand”

and have different athletes sponsor them. Likewise, Johnson testified that he

made the October 2021 post in an attempt to recruit people for a company in

New Orleans where he did “odd jobs.” He explained that he never paid

anyone to work, the post is only phrased in this manner because it is the

“way [he] talks” and that he was only trying to recruit workers.

With respect to the January 21, 2021, and August 9, 2021, posts,

Johnson testified that the January post only meant that he was permitted to

recruit players again. In addressing the August post, Johnson stated that he

was a sports marketing agent and recruited Williamson. He stated that at

one point, he got Williamson to sign an $80,000,000 deal with Michael

Jordan because he was “in the industry pretty huge” at that time, but his

lawsuit with Williamson was not settled and that he was under a “gag

order.”

The State then introduced a document with the following caption: “[a]

lawsuit filed by Cedriquze Johnson versus Zion Williamson’s former

marketing agent, has settled. June the 2nd, a mediator’s report said they’re at

a full settlement. No additional details. Johnson was arguing a five percent

cut of former marketing agents’ commission for recruiting Zion.” Johnson

stated that despite this, the lawsuit was not settled because it was filed in two

states, and a decision had not been rendered in one state.

7

During questioning by the trial court, Johnson clarified that despite

statements during the initial hearing that he purchased homes, he never

“flipped” homes, rather, he stated he purchased a home for Adams. Johnson

stated generally that he could not afford to pay the modified support

payments, and that he was actively involved in C.J.’s life. The State called

Adams, who testified that C.J. has a close relationship with Johnson. She

stated that Johnson never purchased a home for her and that while Johnson’s

name is on the deed, her name is on the mortgage. She stated that Johnson

paid two notes, but she primarily pays the mortgage. Adams testified that

Johnson did some repairs on the home, but stated that they were small.

Adams admitted that Johnson occasionally helped with her other children

but maintained that only she provided financial support for them. 12

In discussing why the hearing officer imputed $100,000 as Johnson’s

annual income, the State explained that it was difficult to determine

Johnson’s actual income and as a result, the hearing officer considered

Johnson’s bank accounts with Hancock Whitney13 and used the Louisiana

Occupational Wage Guide (“LOWG”) to determine the average income for

coaches and scouts in Louisiana, which was $58,890. However, given

Johnson’s various trips to sporting events and his “extravagant lifestyle,” the

hearing officer found this amount to be “grossly low.”

12
Adams also testified that sometime in 2019, Johnson adopted a basketball
player from Africa, who is currently attending college in a different state, but was the
number one basketball player in Africa prior to his adoption.

13
The State noted that Johnson’s business account, CED Johnson, LLC, initially
contained $6,956, but as of the date of the hearing, was -$159. Although questioned why
the account was in the negative, Johnson only stated that he could not touch the money in
the account and that he needed the signature of both of his business partners to do so.

8

In reviewing the hearing officer’s obligation worksheet, the trial court

noted two occupations were listed for Johnson: producers and directors (with

an average income of $45,720), and coaches and scouts (with an average

income of $58,890). The State then noted that Johnson failed to produce his

tax returns from the past three years since the rule for support was filed on

January 20, 2021. At that time, the trial court permitted Johnson to produce

his tax returns on his phone, wherein the 2018 return reflected a gross

income of $145,362; however, the State indicated that the 2019 return was

not signed by a certified tax preparer, and the 2020 return provided that

Johnson did not have a reported income, but did have expenses of $20,000.14

At the close of testimony, the trial court issued its ruling, finding that

Johnson was not credible with respect to his income and earnings. In

considering the hearing officer’s determination that the average income for

Johnson’s area of work, in total, yielded an average income of $100,000 and

that Johnson’s 2018 tax return reflected that his gross income was $145,362,

the trial court determined that the $100,000 imputed to Johnson’s income

was not improper, given that there were no other supporting documents to

verify Johnson’s actual income. Johnson now appeals this ruling, raising

two assignments of error.

DISCUSSION

Imputation of Income

By his first assignment, Johnson alleges that the trial court erred in

imputing an income earning potential of $100,000. Johnson acknowledges

14
In explaining the reported expenses, the State provided that at that time, it
appeared that Johnson received money through the Paycheck Protection Program, which
would allow him not to report the money as income, but report it as an expense instead.
9

that the trial court may consider the most recently published LOWG to

determine the income earning potential of a party found to be voluntarily

unemployed or underemployed; however, he argues that in this case, the trial

court improperly utilized the LOWG in assigning him two separate

occupations, producers and directors (with an average income of $45,720),

and coaches and scouts (with an average income of $58,890), and merely

adding the salaries to arrive at an annual income estimation. Johnson

maintains that he has never worked as a producer or director and that there is

insufficient evidence to establish that this was ever his field of work, or that

he possesses the skills or experience sufficient for this occupation.

The law regarding child support payments is well settled: the

obligation to support children is a conjoint obligation upon the parents, and

each must contribute in proportion to his or her resources. State ex rel.

Douglas v. Williams, 46,520 (La. App. 2 Cir. 10/05/11), 76 So. 3d 103. If a

parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be

calculated based on a determination of his or her income earning potential,

unless the party is physically or mentally incapacitated, or is caring for a

child of the parties under the age of five years. In determining the party’s

income earning potential, the trial court may consider the most recently

published Louisiana Occupational Employment Wage Survey. La. R.S.

9:315.11(A). Income includes potential income, if a party is voluntarily

unemployed or underemployed. La. R.S. 9:315(C)(5)(b); Brossett v.

Brossett, 49,883 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/24/15), 195 So. 3d 471; Fuqua v. Fuqua,

45,555 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/22/10), 47 So. 3d 1121.

A party is not deemed voluntarily unemployed or underemployed if he

or she is absolutely unemployable or incapable of being employed, or if the
10

unemployment or underemployment results through no fault or neglect of

the party. Fuqua, supra. Voluntary underemployment is a question of good

faith of the obligor parent. Id. Whether the obligor is in good faith in

reducing his or her income is a factual determination which will not be

disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of the trial court’s wide discretion. Id.

The trial court also has wide discretion in resolving factual issues. Id. The

court’s credibility determinations regarding a party’s sources of income are

entitled to great weight. Armstrong v. Rayford, 39,653 (La. App. 2 Cir.

05/11/05), 902 So. 2d 1214.

In the instant case, the trial court could not accurately determine

Johnson’s true income as he claimed to be unemployed, but later

contradicted himself and testified to having a part-time job at a bingo hall

and “hustling” to pay bills. The trial court then determined that Johnson was

voluntarily underemployed and calculated child support payments based on

his income earning potential. Using the LOWG, the trial court determined

that Johnson fell within two categories: coaches and scouts, as well as

producers and directors. Regarding the first category, there is ample

testimony and evidence to support the court’s finding that Johnson was

employed as a recruiter, primarily scouting players for the NBA. Therefore,

the only question before this Court is whether there was sufficient evidence

to assign the additional occupation of producers and directors to Johnson.

After reviewing the record, we cannot say that the trial court properly

assigned this additional occupation. As defined by the LOWG, producers

and directors are persons who “[p]roduce or direct stage, television, radio,

video, or film productions for entertainment, information, or instruction.

[Are] [r]esponsible for creative decisions, such as interpretation of script,
11

choice of actors or guests, set design, sound, special effects, and

choreography.” The State argues that the trial court only made a “passing

reference” to this category to merely suggest “that it might be the closest

thing to [Johnson’s] described roles as [sic] a promoter and ‘hustler.’”

However, we cannot say that Johnson’s purported business activities fall

under this category’s definition.

In this case, Johnson primarily testified that he worked as a Sports

Marketing Agent, which, from his limited and evasive testimony, appears to

include scouting and recruiting potential athletes, facilitating endorsements,

and promoting particular athletes. Specifically, he testified that his job

entailed “[r]ecruiting the best players all over the world signing marketing

bills -- sports marketing bills, like shoe deals, Nike deals, Puma deals,

Gatorade, Powerade, stuff like that.” We find that such undertakings do not

surmount to the type activities associated with a producer or director, as

defined by the LOWG. There is no evidence that once Johnson recruited a

player or signed an endorsement, he had any further control in facilitating

the details of that particular endorsement or deal.

Although Johnson testified that he owned several businesses,

including a hair supply store, a uniform store, and a company referred to as

Perfect and Perfection Global Marketing Agency, there is no evidence in the

record that he produced or directed any activities in relation to those

businesses. Further, with respect to Johnson’s various social media posts

promoting businesses for other individuals, we find that there is no evidence

that Johnson did any more than post about such ventures on his various

social media. Simply posting about a business on another’s behalf does not

equate to the definition of producers or directors. An occupational category
12

cannot simply be assigned to Johnson; there must be an activity that

correlates to that occupation.

As such, we must reverse this portion of the trial court’s judgment as

we find that there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding that

Johnson worked as a producer or director.

Increase in Child Support

By his second assignment, Johnson argues that the trial court erred in

increasing his monthly child support obligation from $190 to $937. He

alleges that his circumstances had not changed in that he is still unemployed,

“except for the occasional odd job or cash “hustle,” and was still hoping to

recover his former career as a [sic] sports agent.”

An award of child support may be modified if the circumstances of

the child or of either parent materially change and shall be terminated upon

proof that it has become unnecessary. La. C.C. art. 142. The party seeking a

reduction in child support must show a material change in circumstances of

one of the parties between the time of the previous award and the time of the

motion for modification of the award. La. C.C. art. 142; La. R.S. 9:311.

In this case, the trial court expressly found that Johnson was not

credible with respect to his employment, income, and lifestyle, and

determined that, given his recent activities, the increase in support was

warranted. We agree. Despite Johnson’s claims that there has been no

material change in circumstances, we find that his lifestyle and activities

indicate that he continues to live a lavish lifestyle and that he is working as a

recruiter and scout again, and has some source of income.

First, Johnson testified that he was unemployed but later stated he had

a part-time job working in a bingo hall, earning approximately $10 an hour.
13

Johnson testified that since his lawsuit with Williamson and the pandemic,

he struggled to work as a recruiter and his income declined since 2019.

However, we note that Johnson testified that he attended the aforementioned

LSU and Southern basketball games for personal entertainment, but later

stated that if he noticed a potential client, he would have pursued it,

indicating that he has continued to perform his duties in relation to his field

of work as a recruiter and scout despite testimony that his lawsuit with

Williamson prevented him from working as a scout.

Specifically, he stated, “[a]nytime I go to a game, it could be through

work, you know. So, if I go to a high school game and I see a player, I’m

going to try and talk to the parents or something like that or do something to

try to, you know, get some kind of lead way and try to make it happen. . .”

Moreover, Johnson testified that only a few days before the rehearing, he

was called to California to recruit and scout a potential player. Regardless

of whether Johnson was able to successfully recruit a potential athlete does

not diminish the fact that he still performs his duties as a scout or recruiter.

Importantly, the only evidence that Johnson has produced to indicate

that there has been no change in his circumstances is his 2020 tax return

which reflected that he did not have an income for that tax year.

However, we note that since then, his lifestyle has vastly contradicted

his narrative of being unemployed and having no steady source of income.

Throughout the rehearing, the State produced evidence of Johnson attending

several sporting events, including Saints games and a video of Johnson with

floor seats to a Lakers and Clippers game. It is evident that Johnson has

attempted to mask his lavish expenditures by claiming his outings as gifts.

The record in this case reflects that Johnson continues to own his home in
14

Monroe, is able to pay his utilities, has a part-time job, and continues to

attend several sporting events where he continues to exercise his skills as a

recruiter and scout.

Although we find that Johnson’s income earning potential is more

appropriately classified under the coaches and scouts category of the

LOWG, we note that the court has discretion in setting the amount of basic

child support. The overriding factor in determining the amount of support is

the best interest of the children. Jones v. Jones, 38,790 (La. App. 2 Cir.

6/25/04), 877 So. 2d 1061. The amount of child support in a specific matter

is to be judged on a case-by-case basis; there is no mathematical formula.

Id. In this case, the increase in support was based on the finding that

Johnson’s income as a scout alone did not accurately reflect his income from

his 2018 tax return, his lifestyle, and all other facts presented at trial.

Because the trial court is afforded discretion in determining support,

we find that the court did not err in affirming the increase in child support

payments based on the facts presented to the court. This assignment lacks

merit.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the trial court is

reversed as to the finding that Johnson’s income fell within the producers

and directors category under the LOWG. We affirm the remainder of the

trial court’s judgment regarding monthly child support payments in the

amount of $937, plus the additional five percent statutory fee. Costs of this

appeal are assessed to Johnson.

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

15