Celia Jane Cureton v. James Howard Cureton

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

06-1030

CELIA JANE CURETON

VERSUS

JAMES HOWARD CURETON

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2001-3675
HONORABLE LILYNN ANNETTE CUTRER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

WRIT DENIED.

Cooks, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

James Buckner Doyle
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 5241
Lake Charles, LA 70606-5241
(337) 474-9989
Counsel for Defendant-Applicant:
James Howard Cureton

Henry R. Liles
Liles & Redd
P. O. Box 3717
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3717
(337) 433-8529
Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent:
Celia Jane Cureton

Pickett, Judge.

Upon review of the record, and consideration of counsels’ arguments, we

conclude there is no error in the ruling of the trial court.

WRIT DENIED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.

1

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

06-1030

CELIA JANE CURETON

VERSUS

JAMES HOWARD CURETON

COOKS, J., dissents.

I respectfully dissent from the writ denial which found no error in the judgment

of the trial court. Calcasieu Parish assigns domestic and juvenile matters exclusively

to only two judges in the district, in effect granting them exclusive jurisdiction over

these cases. As authority for this method of assigning cases, Calcasieu Parish relies

on La.R.S. 13:587, which provides as follows:

A. The judges of the Fourteenth Judicial District Court
may, by rule adopted by a majority vote of the judges
sitting en banc, designate and assign to one or more
divisions of the court any or all types of juvenile matters of
which the court has jurisdiction and any or all types of
domestic relations matters of which the court has
jurisdiction.

I am convinced that Calcasieu Parish’s method of assignment, which

effectively limits the jurisdictional authority of the remaining elected judges, violates

Louisiana Constitution Article V, Section 16(A), which grants general jurisdiction

over all cases, including juvenile and domestic, to all elected judges in the district.

Louisiana Constitution Article V, Section 16(A) provides as follows:

Original Jurisdiction. (1) Except as otherwise authorized by this
constitution or except as heretofore or hereafter provided by law for
administrative agency determinations in worker’s compensation matters,
a district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil and criminal
matters.

While the legislature may create family and juvenile courts within a district, no

such court has been created in Calcasieu Parish and the Parish may not rely on

La.R.S. 13:587 to limit the jurisdictional authority of a district or city court judge

over juvenile matters. Honorable Charles Schrumpt, city court judge in Sulphur

sought an opinion from the Louisiana Attorney General as to whether La.R.S. 13:587

limits his authority to hear juvenile cases. In an opinion rendered October 20, 2006,

the Louisiana Attorney General stated:

This office is in receipt of your opinion request wherein you made
the following inquiry:

1) Can Sulphur City Court exercise jurisdiction over juvenile
matters?

Both the Louisiana Constitution and the Louisiana Children’s
Code expressly provide for the administration of jurisdiction over
juvenile matters. Generally, district, parish, or city courts will have
jurisdiction over juvenile matters, unless a special juvenile court has
been created by law. In that case, the juvenile court, which has been
created, has exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving juveniles.
Article 302(1) of the Children’s Code expressly recognizes only four
such juvenile courts that have been created.

La.R.S. 13:587, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Division, is of
particular concern regarding this issue because it states in part that the
judges of the Fourteenth Judicial District Court may designate and
assign to one or more divisions of the court any or all types of juvenile
matters of which the court has jurisdiction. This statute, however, does
not expressly or implicitly designate the creation of a juvenile court such
as those mentioned in La. Ch. C. 302(1) within Calcasieu Parish.

It is the opinion of this office that Sulphur City Court has not been
divested of jurisdiction over juvenile matters by La.R.S. 13:587.

The Louisiana Constitution and the Louisiana Children’s Code
expressly vest jurisdiction with city courts, unless a juvenile court has
been created by law. No such court has been created in Calcasieu
Parish. The only parishes for which the legislature has granted
permission to create juvenile courts are Caddo, Orleans, Jefferson, and
East Baton Rouge, as expressly evidenced by La.Ch.C. art 302(1).

In conclusion, it is the opinion of this office that district, parish,
or city courts outside of the territorial jurisdiction of Caddo, Orleans,
Jefferson, and East Baton Rouge Parishes have authority to exercise
jurisdiction over juvenile matters within its respective jurisdiction.

Op.Atty.Gen., No. 06-0203 (October 20, 2006).

Absent a legislatively created domestic and juvenile court, Calcasieu Parish may

not strip a duly elected judge of his constitutional jurisdictional authority to hear

domestic and juvenile cases. Moreover, the practice in Calcasieu Parish of

manipulating the assignment of certain types of cases to particular judges is

specifically prohibited by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 253.1.

All pleadings filed shall be randomly assigned to a particular
section or division of the court by either of the following methods:

(1) By drawing indiscriminately from a pool containing
designations of all sections or divisions of court in the particular
jurisdiction in which the case is filed.

(2) By use of a properly programmed electronic device or
computer programmed to randomly assign cases to any one of the
sections or divisions of court in the particular jurisdiction in which the
case is filed.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has held “that transfers that permit judges to

circumvent the random allotment process to funnel particular types of cases to one

judge violates the spirit and purpose of La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 253.1.” State v.

Sprint Communications Company, L.P., 96-3094 (La. 9/9/97), 699 So.2d 1058, 1062.

I respectfully submit Calcasieu Parish’s method of designating particular types

of cases to only two judges within the district violates the Louisiana Constitution

Article V, Section 16(A) and La.Code Civ.Proc. art. 253.1.