Lasalle Parish School Board v. Louisiana MacHinery Company, LLC

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-276

LASALLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
TOWN OF JENA AND TOWN OF OLLA

VERSUS

LOUISIANA MACHINERY COMPANY, LLC

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LASALLE, NO. 37,446
HONORABLE J. CHRISTOPHER PETERS, DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION ON REMAND

**********

JOHN E. CONERY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, and
John E. Conery, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Robert R. Rainer
Drew M. Talbot
Fredrick Mulhearn
Rainer Anding Talbot & Mulhearn
8480 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Suite D
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
(225) 766-0200
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Lasalle Parish School Board
Town of Olla
Town of Jena

Jesse R. Adams, III
Andre B. Burvant
Kathryn S. Friel
Matthew A. Mantle
Jones Walker LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue, 51st Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170
(504) 582-8000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC

CONERY, Judge.

This case was initially before this court on an appeal filed on behalf of

Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC (“Taxpayer”) seeking to reverse the ruling of

the district court granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, LaSalle Parish

School Board and the Towns of Jena and Olla, whose designated sales and use tax

collector is the Concordia Parish School Board (“Collector”). This court affirmed

the ruling of the trial court in favor of the Collector in LaSalle Parish Sch. Bd. v.

Louisiana Machinery Co., LLC, 12-276 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/12), 92 So.3d 1232.

Pursuant to its decision on a writ of certiorari granted January 17, 2014

under Docket No. 12-1567, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued a remand order to

this court “to consider the matter in light of [the supreme court’s] recent opinions

in Washington Parish Sheriff’s Office v. Louisiana Machinery Co., LLC, 13-0583

(La. 10/15/13), [126] So.3d [1273], and Catahoula Parish Sch. Bd., v. Louisiana

Machinery Co., LLC, 12-2504 (La. 10/15/13), [124] So.3d [1065].” LaSalle

Parish Sch. Bd., et al. v. Louisiana Machinery Co., LLC., 12-1567, p. 1 (La.

1/27/14), 130 So.3d 333, 333; LaSalle Parish Sch. Bd., et al. v. Louisiana

Machinery Rentals, LLC., 12-1568, p. 1 (La. 1/17/14), 130 So.3d 333, 333.

In response to the supreme court’s remand, we ordered additional briefing

from the parties and fixed the case for submission on briefs. We received the

requested briefing, but the Collector went beyond the supreme court’s remand

order and argued that the Taxpayer’s initial appeal to this court was untimely

pursuant to La.R.S. 47:337.61(3). In essence, the Collector urged this court to hold

that the district court’s judgment was final, to dismiss the Taxpayer’s appeal, and

to remand this case to the district court for adjudication of the Collector’s

remaining claims.

The Collector suggests that this court should decline to follow the supreme

court’s remand instructions and, in support of its position, urges the application of

the “companion cases,” Caldwell Parish Sch. Bd., et al., v. Louisiana Machinery

Co., LLC, 12-1383 consolidated with Tensas Parish Sch. Bd., et al. v. Louisiana

Machinery Co., LLC, et al. 12-1762 (La.1/29/13), 110 So.3d 993, to show that the

appeal taken by the Taxpayer in this case was untimely. The Collector also raised

the issue of lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of the Taxpayer’s appeal

in its briefing to the supreme court.

When the supreme court granted the Taxpayer’s writ application, heard the

case, and remanded this case with specific instructions to consider their opinions in

Washington and Catahoula, it had already issued its opinions in Caldwell and

Tensas. Thus, the supreme court was well aware of its prior rulings and, by its

silence, rejected the Collector’s argument. Barham & Arceneaux v. Kozak, 02-

2325 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/12/04), 874 So.2d 228, writ denied, 04-930 (La. 6/4/04),

876 So.2d 87. There was no timely application by the Collector for rehearing to

the supreme court. Thus, the supreme court’s ruling remanding this case in light of

Washington and Catahoula is final pursuant to La.Code Civ.P art. 2167.1

Our review on remand is limited to the supreme court’s specific remand

instructions. Stafford’s Heirs v. Renshaw, 33 La.Ann. 443 (La.1881); Farm Credit

Bank of Texas v. Sturgeon, 93-1536 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/94), 640 So.2d 666.

Following the mandate of the supreme court, we must consider the case on

remand in light of Washington and Catahoula. In Catahoula, the supreme court

1
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2167(B) states in pertinent part, “A judgment
of the supreme court becomes final and definitive when the delay for application for rehearing
has expired and no timely application therefor has been made.”

2

affirmed the decision of another panel of this court2 and specifically held that the

mandatory notice requirements of La.R.S. 47:337.51(A), upon which the Collector

based its motion for partial summary judgment, were deficient, and therefore, the

assessments were not final. The supreme court further reasoned, based on its

previous finding that the Collector’s assessments lacked the required finality

pursuant to La.R.S. 47:337.51(A), that “the validity of the notices of assessments

constituted an essential element of the Collector’s claims rather than strictly a

defense asserted by the Companies.” Catahoula, 124 So.3d at 1076. Based on its

holding that the Collector’s assessments were not final, the supreme court

proceeded to “determine whether the Collector is entitled to partial summary

judgments absent reliance on the assessments.” Id. Without a final assessment,

“the Collector was required to support its claims for taxes with evidence.” Id. at

1077. The supreme court stated:

The facts alleged in the Collector’s petitions and attested to by the
supporting affidavit were incorrect relative to the adequacy of the
notices of assessments and the finality of the assessments, thus they
do not constitute a prima facie case establishing the Companies owe
the alleged tax amounts. Further, the Collector did not submit any
additional documentation or other evidence to prove or support its tax
claims. Under these factual circumstances, the Collector failed to
prove the substance of its tax claims, and the district court erred in
granting the motions for partial summary judgment.

Id.

Finally, the supreme court discussed the timeliness of defenses raised by the

Taxpayer, which are controlled by La.R.S. 47:337.61(2) and “require[] all defenses

to be ‘presented at one time’ and filed ‘prior to the time fixed for the hearing;’

2
Catahoula involved the consolidated cases of Catahoula Parish Sch. Bd. v. Louisiana
Machinery Rentals, LLC, 12-443 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/24/12), 105 So.3d 169, and Catahoula
Parish Sch. Bd. v. Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC, 12-444 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/24/12), 105
So.3d 169.

3

otherwise, the court is prohibited from considering the defense.” Id. The supreme

court found that all defenses asserted in connection with a supplemental petition

filed “prior to the scheduled hearing date on the supplemental petitions . . . were

filed timely.” Id.

For the reasons assigned in Catahoula, the supreme court decided

Washington, finding that “revised notice of assessments did not comply with the

mandatory statutory notice provisions of La.R.S. 47:337.51(A) and, therefore, the

assessments were not final. . . . [and] that the record does not support the

Collector’s motions for partial summary judgment absent reliance on the

assessments.” Washington, 126 So.3d at 1278.

In this case, the procedural posture and the Collector’s submissions to the

trial court as the basis for the motion for summary judgment are identical to those

in Washington and Catahoula. As in Washington and Catahoula, the notice here

lacked the required finality pursuant to La.R.S. 47:337.51(A), and therefore, it

must be determined whether the Collector in this case is entitled to partial

summary judgment absent reliance on the Collector’s revised notice of

assessments. As in Catahoula, the assessments in this case are not final due to

defective notice. In order to prevail on its partial motion for summary judgment,

the Collector would have had to support its claim for taxes with evidence.

Accordingly, after due consideration of the supreme court’s rulings in Washington

and Catahoula and a review of the facts and procedural posture of the case before

us on remand, we find that a reversal and remand to the district court is required

for such a determination. We therefore reverse the trial court’s grant of partial

summary judgment in favor of the LaSalle Parish School Board, Town of Jena, and

Town of Olla. We remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings

4

consistent with the supreme court’s decisions. Costs of this appeal are assessed

equally to the LaSalle Parish School Board, Town of Jena, and Town of Olla

pursuant to La.R.S. 13:5112.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—

Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

5