Delta Southern Railroad, Inc. v. Lake Providence Port Commission, Wyly Gilfoil, Mark Buntyn, Roger Clement, Jerry King, Francis Lensing, Karvan Powell, and James Thom, IV.

Judgment rendered February 26, 2025.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 56,112-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

DELTA SOUTHERN Plaintiff-Appellee
RAILROAD, INC.

versus

LAKE PROVIDENCE PORT Defendants-Appellants
COMMISSION, WYLY GILFOIL,
MARK BUNTYN, ROGER
CLEMENT, JERRY KING,
FRANCIS LENSING, KARVAN
POWELL, AND JAMES THOM,
IV.

*****

Appealed from the
Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Carroll, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 23,740

Honorable James Hugh Boddie, Jr. (Ad Hoc), Judge

*****

BISHOP, PAXTON, Counsel for
CRIGLER AND Defendants-Appellants
MOBERLEY, APLC
By: John Durham Crigler, Jr.

LEAKE & ANDERSSON, LLP. Counsel for
By: Alex P. Tilling Plaintiff-Appellee
Leila A. D’Aquin
Edward T. Hayes

GENTRY LOCKE ATTORNEYS
By: John M. Scheib
*****

Before STONE, HUNTER, and ELLENDER, JJ.

HUNTER, J.

Defendants, the Lake Providence Port Commission, and its

commissioners in their official capacities, Wyly Gilfoil, Mark Buntyn,

Roger Clement, Jerry King, Francis Lensing, Karvan Powell, and James

Thom, IV, appeal a district court’s decision issuing a writ of quo warranto

filed by plaintiff, Delta Southern Railroad, Inc. For the following reasons,

we affirm.

FACTS

The Lake Providence Port Commission was created by the Louisiana

Legislature, through the enactment of La. R.S. 34:1501, et seq., and is

authorized to “exercise the powers herein conferred upon it, within the port

area, consisting of the entire parish of East Carroll as the boundaries and

limits of said parish are presently fixed by law.” La. R.S. 34:1503(A).

Defendant, Wyly Gilfoil, is the director of the Lake Providence Port

Commission, and defendants, Mark Buntyn, Roger Clement, Jerry King,

Francis Lensing, Karvan Powell, and James Thom, IV, are commissioners.1

All defendants – the Lake Providence Port Commission, the director, and the

commissioners – will be referred to collectively as “the Commission.”

Plaintiff, Delta Southern Railroad, Inc. (“DSRR”), is a railroad

company which operates and maintains two branches of rail line in the State

of Louisiana. The Lake Providence Branch of the DSRR line extends

through East Carroll and Madison Parishes, and the Sterlington Branch is

located in Ouachita Parish. This matter pertains to the Lake Providence

Branch.

1
The director and commissioners were named in the lawsuit in their official
capacities only.

In 2019, the United States Department of Transportation awarded a

grant to a partnership composed, in part, of DSRR and the Commission.

According to the Commission, the purpose of the grant was to reconstruct

the rail corridor between McGehee, Arkansas and Tallulah, Louisiana. A

dispute arose between DSRR and the Commission when DSRR allegedly

declined to use the grant funding to reconstruct the 20-mile segment of rail

line between the Lake Providence Port and the Madison Parish Port.

Thereafter, the Commission sought to purchase the segment of rail line and

filed a federal feeder line application with the Surface Transportation Board

(“STB”). In its application, the Commission expressed its intent to purchase

the rail line, which included sections located in Madison Parish.

On March 4, 2024, DSRR filed a petition for writ of quo warranto,

alleging the Commission could not “exercise authority outside of the

jurisdictional limits expressly set by the Legislature when it created the

[Commission].” DSRR also asserted the Commission exceeded its authority

“by attempting to acquire the Line through its application to the STB

because the Line lies outside East Carroll,” and the Commission “is not

empowered to take, own, or operate entities or assets outside of East

Carroll.” Further, DSRR alleged the Commission engaged in an ultra vires

act by attempting the purchase property outside of its territorial limits, and

the Commission lacked the authority to pursue the STB application under

Louisiana law.2 Following a hearing, the district court granted the writ of

quo warranto and ordered “the Lake Providence Port Commission [to] cease

2
DSRR also sought a writ of mandamus asking the court to direct the
Commission to limit its authority “to matters arising within East Carroll Parish.” The
district denied the writ of mandamus. DSRR did not appeal the denial, and that portion
of the judgment is not at issue in this appeal.

2

its ultra vires actions and discontinue its pursuit of ownership or control of

property outside of East Carroll Parish in its feeder line application before

the United States Surface Transportation, STB Docket No. FD 36447.”3

The Commission appeals.

DISCUSSION

For the first time on appeal, the Commission questions the trial court’s

authority to adjudicate the writ of quo warranto. Because subject matter

jurisdiction may be raised at any time, we must examine the issue.4

The Commission contends the district court erred in issuing the writ of quo

warranto. It argues the writ of quo warranto applies only to “an individual to

show by what authority he claims or holds public office, or office in a

corporation or limited liability company, or directing a corporation or

limited liability company to show by what authority it exercises certain

powers.” La. C.C.P. art. 3901. According to the Commission, it is a

political subdivision, not a corporation or limited liability company. The

3
DSRR asserts the STB has stayed the Commission’s feeder line application
pending the finality of the district court’s judgment.
4
Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an
action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties, and to grant the relief to
which they are entitled. La. C.C.P. art. 1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the legal
power and authority of a court to hear and determine a particular class of actions or
proceedings, based upon the object of the demand, the amount in dispute, or the value of
the right asserted. La. C.C.P. art. 2. The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of
an action or proceeding cannot be conferred by consent of the parties or waived; a
judgment rendered by a court which has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action or proceeding is void. La. C.C.P. arts. 3 and 925; Boudreaux v. State, Dep’t of
Transp. & Dev., 01-1329 (La. 2/26/02), 815 So. 2d 7. See also Whittenberg v.
Whittenberg, 97-1424 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/8/98), 710 So. 2d 1157; Johnson v. Vinson
Guard Service, Inc., 577 So. 2d 56 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1990), writ denied, 578 So. 2d 915
(La. 1991).
The issue of subject matter jurisdiction addresses the court’s authority to
adjudicate the cause before it; the issue may be considered at any time, even by the court
on its own motion, at any stage of an action. Boudreaux, supra; Whittenberg, supra.
Moreover, it is the duty of a court to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even
when the issue is not raised by the litigants. Boudreaux, supra; Renno v. Evans, 580 So.
2d 945 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991).

3

Commission further asserts the issue of whether the district court exceeded

its authority in issuing the writ of quo warranto is a matter of subject matter

jurisdiction, which can be raised at any time.

Quo warranto is a writ directing an individual to show by what

authority he claims or holds public office, or office in a corporation or

limited liability company, or directing a corporation or limited liability

company to show by what authority it exercises certain powers. Its purpose

is to prevent usurpation of office or of powers. La. C.C.P. art. 3901. A writ

of quo warranto orders the defendant to show by what authority he or she is

acting. See La. C.C.P. art. 3901, comment (e).

Port Commissions are political subdivisions of the State. See, Cohort

Energy Co. v. Caddo-Bossier Pars. Port Comm’n, 37,449 (La. App. 2 Cir.

8/20/03), 852 So. 2d 1174. “Political subdivision” means a parish,

municipality, and any other unit of local government, including a school

board and a special district, authorized by law to perform governmental

functions. La. Const. art. 6, § 44. In Cohort Energy Co. v. Caddo-Bossier

Pars. Port Comm’n, supra, this Court stated:

[T]he Port Commission is clearly a juridical person possessing
the same attributes of personality of most corporations. The
Port Commission consists of nine members who act as a single
body. The Port Commission is granted by La. R.S. 31:3160
various attributes of personality, among them the power to enter
contracts, sell property, purchase property, enter service
agreements and numerous other powers as a corpus in order to
fulfill its purpose of regulating commerce and traffic on the
river.
***

Id. at 1185.

As stated above, the Commission maintains it is exempt from a writ of

quo warranto because it is not an individual claiming to hold public office or

4

an office within a corporation. We agree the Commission is not a private

corporation or an “individual claiming to hold public office.” However, the

Commission is a juridical person created by the legislature for the purpose of

administering specified affairs of government.

As stated above, quo warranto is a writ directing an individual, i.e.,

the Commission, to show by what authority it exercises certain powers. We

find a pro warranto proceeding is appropriate for the instant action. The

Commission claims to have the authority to purchase the Lake Providence

Branch of railway, and in the quo warranto proceeding, it is incumbent upon

the Commission to show by what authority it is acting. Accordingly, we

find the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over these proceedings.

This assignment of error is without merit.

The Commission also contends the district court erred in finding La.

R.S. 34:1503 limits it to East Carroll Parish only. It argues the district court

relied solely on the language set forth in La. R.S. 34:1503(A), rather than

reviewing the entire statute. According to the Commission, it has the

authority to acquire rail-related property in any parish in Northeast

Louisiana in which such rail-related properties would support operations of

the Lake Providence Port. The Commission maintains R.S. 34:1503(C)

authorizes it to acquire rail-related properties outside East Carroll Parish,

including “the surrounding areas served by the Port, and throughout

Northeast Louisiana and Southeast Arkansas.” The Commission further

argues La. R.S. 34:1504 authorizes it to impose ad valorem taxes “on all

property situated within the port area, subject to taxation” and to “incur

debts for its lawful purposes, and to issue in its name, negotiable bonds.”

Additionally, the Commission asserts La. R.S. 34:1506 authorizes it to
5

“acquire by expropriation, in accordance with expropriation laws of the State

of Louisiana, any wharves, landings, or any other property necessary for the

benefit and advantage of the commerce of the said commission.” See also,

49 U.S.C. § 10907.5

La. Const. art. VI, § 43 provides:

All deep-water port commissions and all deep-water port,
harbor, and terminal districts as organized and constituted on
January 1, 1974, including their powers and functions, structure
and organization, and territorial jurisdiction, are ratified and
confirmed and shall continue to exist, except that

(1) The legislature by law may grant additional powers and
functions to any such commission or district and may create
new port commissions or port, harbor, and terminal districts.

(2) Only by law enacted by the favorable vote of two-thirds of
the elected members of each house, may the legislature
consolidate or abolish any such commission or district or
diminish, reduce, or withdraw from any such commission or
district any of its powers and functions and affect the structure
and organization, distribution, and redistribution of the powers
and functions of any such commission or district, including
additions to or reductions of its territorial jurisdiction.

(3) The legislature shall enact laws with respect to the
membership of the commissions provided in this Section. Once
the law with respect to membership is enacted, it may be
changed only by law enacted by the favorable vote of two-
thirds of the elected members of each house.

The rights and powers of the Lake Providence Port Commission are

set forth in La. R.S. 34:1503, which provides, in relevant part:

A. The commission shall exercise the powers herein conferred
upon it, within the port area, consisting of the entire parish of
East Carroll as the boundaries and limits of said parish are
presently fixed by law.
***
C. The commission shall regulate the commerce, and traffic,
within such port area in such a manner as may, in its judgment,
be for the best interests of the state. It *** shall have authority
5
49 U.S.C. § 10907 pertains to railroad development and the requirements for the
sale/purchase of railroad lines. It does not pertain to the jurisdiction/authority of port
commissions.

6

*** to construct, own, operate and maintain terminal rail
facilities, and other common carrier rail facilities for the
purpose of rendering rail transportation to and from the
facilities to be erected, owned and operated by the commission
in both intrastate and interstate commerce. The legislature may
confer additional powers upon the commission not inconsistent
with the provisions hereof; provided, however, that it shall not
impair any contracts lawfully entered into by the commission.
Title to all property and improvements thereon operated by the
commission shall vest in the state of Louisiana.
***
La. R.S. 34:1504 provides, in pertinent part:

A. The commission shall have authority, when authorized so to
do by a vote of a majority in number and amount of the
property of taxpayers of the port area qualified to vote at an
election for the purpose and in accordance with law, to levy
annually on all property situated within the port area, subject to
taxation, an ad valorem tax not to exceed seven and one-half
mills on the dollar[.]. *** These special taxes shall be levied,
assessed and collected on the property within the port area
under the same methods, terms and conditions and at the same
time as state and parish taxes are levied, assessed and collected;
these taxes shall be secured by the same liens upon the property
subject to taxation within the port area as taxes for state and
parish purposes; and the property subject to any taxes within
said port area shall be sold for failure to pay the same in the
manner as property is sold for delinquent state, parish and other
taxes under the laws of the state.
***
C. The commission, with the approval of the State Bond
Commission, is authorized to incur debts for its lawful
purposes, and to issue in its name, negotiable bonds or notes
therefor, and to pledge for the payment of the principal and
interest of such negotiable bonds or notes the revenues derived
from the operation of properties and facilities maintained and
operated by it, or received by the commission from any taxes
authorized under this Section or from other sources[.] *** In
addition to the pledge of revenues to secure said bonds and
notes, the commission may further secure their payment by
conventional mortgage upon any or all of the properties
constructed or acquired, or to be constructed and acquired by it.
The commission is further authorized to receive, by gift, grant,
donation or otherwise, any sum of money, aid or assistance
from the United States, the state of Louisiana, or any political
subdivision thereof, and unless otherwise provided by the terms
of such gift, grant or donation, in its discretion, to pledge all or
any part of such monies for the further securing of the payment
of the principal and interest of its bonds or notes.

Further, La. R.S. 34:1506 provides:
7

The Lake Providence Port Commission may acquire by
expropriation in accordance with expropriation laws of the state
of Louisiana, any wharves, landings or any other property
necessary for the benefit and advantage of the commerce of the
said commission.

The function of statutory interpretation and the construction given to

legislative acts rests with the judicial branch of the government. The rules of

statutory construction are designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the

Legislature. Legislation is the solemn expression of legislative will and,

thus, the interpretation of legislation is primarily the search for the

legislative intent. Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. v. Tauren Expl., Inc., 17-1518 (La.

6/27/18), 252 So. 3d 431; M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371

(La. 7/1/08), 998 So. 2d 16

The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of

the statute itself. When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application

does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and

no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the

legislature. Id. Moreover, the words of a law must be given their generally

prevailing meaning. La. Civ. Code art. 11.

Furthermore, any political subdivision of the state has only such

powers as are expressly delegated to it by the state through statutory

enactments. See Horseshoe Ent. v. Bossier Par. Police Jury, 30,502 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 6/26/98), 714 So. 2d 920, 924, writ denied, 98-1941 (La.

11/6/98), 728 So. 2d 392; Johnston v. Morehouse Par. Police Jury, 424 So.

2d 1053 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1982).

There is no dispute the Commission has the authority to “to construct,

own, operate and maintain terminal rail facilities, and other common carrier

8

rail facilities for the purpose of rendering rail transportation to and from the

facilities to be erected, owned and operated by the commission in both

intrastate and interstate commerce.” La. R.S. 34:1503(C). The Commission

is also authorized to levy taxes, pursuant to § 1504, and to acquire

properties, pursuant to § 1506. However, these express legislative

authorizations do not extend the Commission’s authority beyond the

geographical limitation set forth in R.S. 34:1503(A). La. R.S. 34:1503(A)

clearly and unambiguously provides, “The commission shall exercise the

powers herein conferred upon it, within the port area, consisting of the

entire parish of East Carroll as the boundaries and limits of said parish are

presently fixed by law.” (Emphasis added).

Despite the Commission’s arguments to the contrary, the legislature

has not enlarged the Commission’s jurisdictional territory beyond East

Carroll Parish. The authority to enlarge the territorial limits of the

Commission is within the purview of the legislature. Consequently, we find

the district court did not err in issuing a writ of quo warranto ordering the

Commission to discontinue its pursuit of ownership and control of property

situated outside of East Carroll Parish.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the district court’s judgment issuing

the writ of quo warranto is affirmed. Costs of the proceedings have been

borne by appellants, the Lake Providence Port Commission, Wyly Gilfoil,

Mark Buntyn, Roger Clement, Jerry King, Francis Lensing, Karvan Powell,

and James Thom, IV.

AFFIRMED.

9