Philmer Johnson, Jr. v. City of Westlake
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., December 15, 2021
Philmer Johnson, Jr. v. City of Westlake, No. CW-0020-0376 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Nov. 3, 2021).
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CW 20-376 consolidated with CW 20-377, CA 20-556, CA 20-557,
CW 21-155 & CW 21-156
PHILMER JOHNSON, JR., ET AL.
VERSUS
CITY OF WESTLAKE
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2017-5089
HONORABLE RONALD F. WARE, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
J. LARRY VIDRINE٭
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Billy H. Ezell, D. Kent Savoie, and J. Larry Vidrine٭, Judges.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
_____________________
٭Honorable J. Larry Vidrine participated in this decision by appointment of the
Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.
J. Michael Veron
Peyton F. Pawlicki
Veron, Bice, Palermo & Wilson, LLC
P.O. Box 2125
Lake Charles, LA 70602-2125
(337) 310-1600
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
City of Westlake
Steven Broussard
Aaron Broussard
Michael Williamson
Jason R. Bell
Rachel K. Couvillion
John Mark Fezio
Broussard & Williamson, LLC
1301 Common Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 439-2450
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Paula Johnson
Marie Moore
Philmer Johnson, Jr.
Daniel L. Moore
Thomas P. Anzelmo, Sr.
Lynda Tafaro
McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo,
Hardy, McDaniel & Welch, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street, Suite 1000
New Orleans, LA 70112
(504) 831-0946
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
OneBeacon Services, LLC
Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company
Soren E. Gisleson
Charles M. King
Herman, Herman & Katz
820 O’Keefe Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70113
(504) 581-4892
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Daniel L. Moore
Marie Moore
Paula Johnson
Philmer Johnson, Jr.
2
VIDRINE, Judge Pro Tempore.
For the reasons set forth in the case of Daniel L. Moore and Marie Moore v.
City of Westlake, 20-556 (La.App. 3 Cir. __/__/____), __So.3d ____, the judgment
of the trial court is reversed. We render that the City of Westlake’s ordinances 880-
882 were legally enacted, not discriminatory, and were reasonable. Costs of this
appeal are assessed to Plaintiffs.