Gene Bonvillain v. LA Land & Exploration Company , 431 F. App'x 319 ( 2011 )

PER CURIAM: *

Gene P. Bonvillain, in his capacity as the Assessor for Terrebonne Parish, filed a number' of suits, which have now been consolidated, against a number of companies domiciled outside of Louisiana to recover delinquent ad valorem taxes. The suits primarily named corporations (and their executive officers) engaged in exploration, drilling or production of oil and gas in or out of Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.

Plaintiffs petition alleged that the defendants, who are required to self report the location and value of their movable property located in the Parish, either failed to report the property or under reported its value. Plaintiff alleged that the inaccuracies were deliberate and fraudulent.

After the suits were consolidated, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds, including lack of capacity by the plaintiff as assessor to sue for the collection of taxes. The district court granted the motion on the ground that, under Louisiana law, the parish sheriff is the only party with capacity to sue for collection of ad valorem taxes and that the assessor had no authority to bring these suits.

For reasons carefully explained by the district court, the capacity of a plaintiff other than an individual or corporation to sue or be sued is governed by state law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b). The district court carefully outlined the Louisiana constitutional and statutory provisions as well as Louisiana Supreme Court jurisprudence that make it clear that a parish assessor has no authority to sue for collection of ad valorem taxes. The authority to file such suits is granted solely to the sheriff of the parish.

Plaintiff also sought to recover the taxes based on a fraud theory. Plaintiff has provided no authority that such artful pleading can avoid clear Louisiana law that plaintiff has no authority to sue for collection of ad valorem taxes.

For the above reasons and those assigned by the district court in its thorough Order and Reasons of March 29, 2010, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.