Ginger Powell & Noah Powell v. Lincoln Parish School Board an Incorporated Body Through Gregg Phillips, in his Official Capacity as President

Judgment rendered July 15, 2026.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 56,923-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

GINGER POWELL & NOAH Plaintiffs-Appellants
POWELL

versus

LINCOLN PARISH SCHOOL Defendant-Appellee
BOARD AN INCORPORATED
BODY THROUGH GREGG
PHILLIPS, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT

*****

Appealed from the
Third Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Lincoln, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 63,665

Honorable Bruce Edward Hampton, Judge

*****

SMITH & NWOKORIE Counsel for Appellants
By: Brian G. Smith

HAMMONDS, SILLS, ADKINS, Counsel for Appellee
GUICE, NOAH & PERKINS, LLP
By: Jon Keith Guice
Neal Lane Johnson, Jr.

*****

Before COX, STEPHENS, and ELLENDER, JJ.

COX, J.

This case arises out of the Third Judicial District, Lincoln Parish,

Louisiana, the Honorable Bruce E. Hampton presiding. Ginger Powell and

Noah Powell (collectively, “the Powells”) appeal the district court’s granting

of an exception of res judicata and dismissing their case. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On March 18, 2024, the Powells filed a petition for temporary

restraining order (“TRO”), preliminary injunction, permanent injunction,

mandamus relief, and declaratory judgment against the Lincoln Parish

School Board (“the School Board”). The Powells claimed that Noah was

prevented from participating in on-campus events during his senior year of

high school because he was a virtual student.1 They asserted that Noah

enrolled in the virtual program because of bullying, and the School Board

was required to adopt a code of conduct policy to prohibit bullying. The

Plaintiffs also alleged that the “clear discrimination by the [School Board’s]

decisions and actions are in violation of the Plaintiff’s due process rights that

are afforded through state law and federal law regarding equal education for

all public students.” They requested a TRO and injunction be issued to

prevent the School Board from continuing to ban Noah from campus.

On April 5, 2024, the School Board filed an exception of no right

and/or cause of action and prescription. The School Board highlighted the

following pertinent facts: the School Board investigated all allegations of

bullying brought to its attention during Noah’s junior year, and it found no

1
Noah was allowed on Simsboro High School’s campus for testing purposes.

evidence of any unaddressed or substantiated misconduct; the School Board

offered to place the accused students under a contract to have no contact

with Noah, but the Powells declined; and, any restrictions placed on Noah

were consistent with his own physicians’ restrictions.

On April 5, 2024, a hearing was held. At the beginning of the

hearing, a pretrial conference was held off the record. The following

conversation ensued when they went back on the record:

MR. GUICE: Yes, Your Honor. Jon Guice on behalf of
the defendants and Mr. Smith on behalf of
the plaintiffs. The parties believe that
they’ve reached a resolution in this matter
that will alleviate the need for the Court’s
time, and we will try to present a formal
Motion to Dismiss with prejudice prior to
next week’s court.

THE COURT: All right. And I am -- just so that I don’t
lose this on the docket or in the event things
fall through, I’m going to reset this matter
for hearing on April 11th at 1:30.
Obviously, if I get that dismissal -- written
dismissal to me before then signed, nobody
will have to appear. Otherwise, we’ll just
leave it on the docket as it is now.

MR. GUICE: Thank you.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that acceptable?

MR. SMITH: It is, Your Honor.

On April 11, 2024, the School Board filed a motion to enforce the parties’

compromise and dismissal in accordance with the April 5 hearing.

On May 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for damages claiming

due process violations related to the on-campus ban and listed the following

injuries: discrimination; mental and emotional stress, past and present;

2

depression, past and present; anxiety, past and present; inconvenience; and

mental anguish, past and present.

On July 12, 2024, the School Board filed an answer and exceptions of

res judicata, no cause/right of action, and vagueness. The Plaintiffs

responded and a hearing was set to argue the exceptions.

On August 14, 2025, a hearing was held concerning the form of the

dismissal. The School Board argued that the previous hearing transcript

proves there was an agreement to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The

Powells argued that the dismissal only related to the injunction claim after

Noah was permitted to participate in his senior prom, pictures, and

graduation ceremony. They asserted that the other issues relating to his

treatment as a student were not resolved. The district court stated that both

petitions filed by the Powells involved the same alleged behavior by the

School Board. The district court also pointed out that counsel for the School

Board indicated the suit would be dismissed with prejudice, and when the

court asked the Powells’ counsel if it was acceptable, he said, “Yes, it is,

Your Honor.” The district court stated it would sign the judgment

dismissing the case with prejudice.

On September 11, 2025, the district court signed its judgment,

granting the School Board’s exception of res judicata and dismissing the

Powells’ claims with prejudice. The Powells now appeal.

DISCUSSION

Compromise or Settlement

The Powells assert that there was no compromise between them and

the School Board resolving all claims. They highlight the law that a

compromise is a contract which is required to be in writing or recited in
3

open court. They assert that their counsel only agreed in open court that the

injunction proceeding would be dismissed with prejudice; there was no

mention of the separate claims for damages.

The School Board asserts that a compromise was reached, and the

hearing transcript clearly reflects the intention of the parties to settle the

pending matters.

Although this was not the Powells’ first enumerated assignment of

error, we take their arguments out of order because their later arguments rely

on the existence of a compromise or settlement.

A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, through concessions

made by one or more of them, settle a dispute or an uncertainty concerning

an obligation or other legal relationship. La. C. C. art. 3071. A compromise

that releases all claims is not ambiguous simply because it is broad. Bucks v.

DirecTECH Southwest, 52,474 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/27/19), 266 So. 3d 467,

writ denied, 19-00701 (La. 9/6/19), 278 So. 3d 970. Compromises are

favored in the law and the burden of proving the invalidity of such an

agreement is on the party attacking it. Bridges v. State, DOTD, 32,018 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 6/16/99), 738 So. 2d 1149.

Louisiana courts have held that “settlement” must be equated with

compromise in connection with the rules governing compromise. See

Townsend v. Square, 94-0758 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/29/94) 643 So. 2d 787. To

be enforceable under Article 3071, a compromise must either (1) be reduced

to writing or signed by the parties or their agents, or (2) be recited in open

court and be capable of transcription from the record of the proceeding.

Lavan v. Nowell, 98-0284 (La. 4/24/98), 708 So. 2d 1052. Article 3071

additionally provides that when the agreement is validly recited in open
4

court, each party acquires the right of judicially enforcing the performance

of the agreement even though its substance may later be written in a more

convenient form. Daniels v. State Through Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 52,750

(La. App. 2 Cir. 7/17/19), 275 So. 3d 998, writ denied, 19-01321 (La.

10/21/19), 280 So. 3d 1173.

Courts will not declare a settlement void without a clear showing that

it violates good morals or public interest. Id. A compromise instrument is

the law between the parties and is interpreted according to the parties’ intent,

using the general rules of construction applicable to contracts. Chauvin v.

Exxon Mobil Corp., 14-0808 (La. 12/9/14), 158 So. 3d 761; Bucks v.

DirecTECH, supra.

When reviewing a court’s interpretation of a compromise agreement

and whether it is valid, we apply a manifest error/clearly erroneous standard

of review. Bernadas v. Edet, 24-0418 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/26/25), 409 So. 3d

1026.

In this case, a pretrial conference was held off the record. When the

record resumed, counsel for the School Board stated that they had reached a

settlement and would submit a signed agreement that the case was dismissed

with prejudice. The Powells’ counsel then agreed when asked by the district

court.

As stated above, a compromise is not ambiguous just because it is

broad. Here, the stated compromise was to dismiss with prejudice. The

district court judge who was involved in this compromise conversation is the

same one who determined that a compromise had been agreed to when

determining res judicata applied. Based on the transcript, we do not find that

the district court was manifestly erroneous in determining that a compromise
5

had been reached and signing a judgment memorializing the compromise.

We will not overturn the district court’s finding of fact that a compromise

was reached and agreed to on the record. We affirm the finding of a valid

compromise to dismiss with prejudice.

Res Judicata

The Powells assert that the district court erroneously determined that

res judicata applied. They argue that res judicata requires a final judgment

on the merits, and their case only involves a preliminary injunction, which is

provisional and does not adjudicate the merits. The Powells also note that

the injunction was unnecessary once graduation participation was allowed,

and withdrawal of injunctive relief was procedural, not substantive;

therefore, no final merits were adjudicated.

Regarding the requirements for res judicata, the Powells argue that the

district court erred in finding identity of cause and thing demanded between

the preliminary injunction proceeding and subsequent tort action. They state

that the prior proceeding (the injunction) sought equitable relief and the

current action seeks compensatory damages, nominal damages, and relief for

constitutional violations. They assert that res judicata cannot operate to bar

claims that were not adjudicated in the prior litigation.

The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is

reviewed de novo. Crowley v. Rojas, 56,647 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/17/25), 427

So. 3d 342; B.A. Kelly Land Co., LLC v. Aethon United BR LP, 54,115 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 9/22/21), 327 So. 3d 1071, writ denied, 21-01828 (La. 2/8/22),

332 So. 3d 671.

The doctrine of res judicata precludes the relitigation of all causes of

action arising out of the same transaction and occurrence that were the
6

subject matter of a prior litigation between the same parties. Oliver v.

Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 14-0329 (La. 10/31/14), 156 So. 3d 596.

Louisiana’s res judicata statute, La. R.S. 13:4231, provides:

Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final
judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on
appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:

(1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of
action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment.

(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of
action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
litigation are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent
action on those causes of action.

(3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant
is conclusive, in any subsequent action between them, with
respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its
determination was essential to that judgment.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has established the following elements

for finding that a second action is precluded by res judicata: (1) the judgment

is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause

or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final

judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted

in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the

subject matter of the first litigation. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 07-2469

(La. 9/8/08), 993 So. 2d 187.

A valid compromise may form the basis for a plea of res judicata.

Bucks v. DirecTECH, supra. As stated above, there was a valid compromise

between the parties, resulting in the suit being dismissed with prejudice,

which forms the basis for this plea of res judicata. Additionally, it is

undisputed that the parties are the same.
7

The fourth element of res judicata asks whether the cause or causes of

action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the

first litigation. In the second petition, the Powells asserted due process and

damages claims stemming from the treatment of Noah. The following chart

shows a side-by-side comparison of selected paragraphs from the first

petition (which was dismissed with prejudice) and the second petition:

1st Petition (TRO, Preliminary 2nd Petition (Petition for damages)
Injunction, Permanent
Injunction, Mandamus Relief and
Declaratory Judgment)

4. The Plaintiff files these 2. The Plaintiffs file this suit against
proceedings against Defendants as a Defendant as a result of Defendant
result of Defendants’ denying the denying the Plaintiff, NOAH
Plaintiff right of due process by not POWELL, his right of due process
allowing Plaintiff to participate and by not allowing Plaintiff to be
be present on campus at Simsboro present and participate in school
High School. functions and events on campus at
Simsboro High School.

10. As a result of the bullying and 11. As a result of the bullying and
mistreatment on school campus, mistreatment on school campus,
Plaintiff suffered from anxiety and Plaintiff suffered from anxiety and
depression and was required to seek depression and was required to seek
treatment for his condition. treatment for his condition. Plaintiff
Plaintiff underwent counseling as a is undergoing counseling as a result.
result. Plaintiff is participating in
virtual learning for his senior year,
2023-2024.

18. The clear discrimination by the 23. The clear discrimination by the
Defendant’s decisions and actions Defendant’s decisions and actions
are in violation of the Plaintiff’s due are in violation of the Plaintiff’s due
process rights that are afforded process rights that are afforded
through state law and federal law through state law and federal law
regarding equal education for all regarding equal education for all
public students. public students.

27. For the reasons cited herein, the 28. The Plaintiff has already
law provides no relief by ordinary suffered irreparable injury by being
means, and a delay in obtaining improperly denied his due process
ordinary relief is unjustified. The rights.
Plaintiff has already suffered
irreparable injury by being

8

improperly denied [his due] process
rights.

28. The Plaintiffs show that as a 30. The Plaintiffs show that as a
result of Defendant’s actions in result of the Defendant’s actions in
violating Plaintiff’s due process violating the Plaintiff’s due process
rights, he has suffered mental stress, rights, Plaintiffs have suffered the
depression, and anxiety, and the following, but not limited to:
Plaintiff, NOAH POWELL, has a) Discrimination;
been denied a right to a fair b) Mental and emotional stress, past
education. and present;
c) Depression, past and present;
d) Anxiety, past and present;
e) Inconvenience; and
f) Mental anguish, past and present.

29. GINGER POWELL, who is 29. GINGER POWELL, who is
Plaintiff and mother of NOAH Plaintiff and mother of NOAH
POWELL, has suffered mental POWELL, has suffered stress and
anguish through the actions of the mental anguish through the actions
Defendant regarding her son’s of the Defendant regarding her
treatment. son’s treatment.

As shown from the side-by-side comparison, the alleged due process

violations and mental and emotional injuries were stated in the first petition

and existed at the time of the settlement.

The fifth element is that the cause or causes of action asserted in the

second suit arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the first

litigation. The facts alleged in the first and second petitions are almost

identical. The second petition adds a few details (i.e., Noah’s GPA and

status of graduating with honors) and includes the preliminary injunction

proceedings. The substance of the two petitions is the same and the causes

of action arose out of the same transaction or occurrence (i.e., Noah’s

allegations of bullying and ban from campus). We do not find that the

district court erred in finding res judicata applied to this case. We affirm the

district court’s judgment.

9

Due Process Claims

The Powells assert that the public school due process claims warrant

adjudication on the merits. They do not cite any provisions of law to support

their argument to deny the exception to res judicata due to their asserted due

process claims. La. R.S. 13:4232 sets out exceptions to the general rule of

res judicata. The Powells agreed to dismiss their claims with prejudice and

failed to reserve any claims for further proceedings. This failure does not

fall under an exception to res judicata. We affirm the district court’s

judgment granting the exception of res judicata.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the district court’s judgment

granting Lincoln Parish School Board’s exception of res judicata. Costs

associated with this appeal are cast on the Appellants, Ginger and Noah

Powell.

AFFIRMED.

10