CW-0021-0155 Nonprecedential Reversed and rendered Processed

Philmer Johnson, Jr. v. City of Westlake

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed November 3, 2021

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., December 15, 2021

Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CW 21-155 consolidated with 21-156, CA 20-556, CA 20-557
CW 20-376 & CW 20-377

PHILMER JOHNSON, JR., ET AL.

VERSUS

CITY OF WESTLAKE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2017-5090
HONORABLE RONALD 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.