Reginald Francis Sr. v. Shentelle L. Daigle and the Hon Bridget Hana, Clerk of Court for the Parish of Ascension

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
le
15- --
jl -
FIRST CIRCUIT
Lt v NUMBER 2020 CE 0723
REGINALD FRANCIS SR.
VERSUS
SHENTELLE L. DAIGLE AND THE HON. BRIDGET HANA,
CLERK OF COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ASCENSION
Judgment Rendered:
AUG 1 4 2020
Appealed from the
Twenty -Third Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Ascension, Louisiana
Docket Number 129, 328
Honorable Emile St. Pierre, Judge Presiding pro tempore
Charles S. Long Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee,
C. Spencer Long, II Reginald Francis, Sr.
Baton Rouge, LA
Seth M. Dornier Counsel for Defendant/Appellant,
Baton Rouge, LA Shentelle Daigle
and
Jonathan Holloway
Baton Rouge, LA
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY, CHUTZ, PENZATO,
AND WOLFE, JJ.
jw I' Uf
C I r C 11``
rr0
[ u._ sl
2020 AUG 14 FM 2' 0
ROOD HAQUIH
CLERK
WOLFE, J.
In this suit challenging candidacy, defendant appeals the district
court' s judgment granting plaintiffs objection to her candidacy and
disqualifying her as a candidate for the office of Council Member, District 3,
City of Donaldsonville. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal as
untimely.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 22, 2020, Shentelle Louise Daigle filed a sworn Notice of
Candidacy with the Ascension Parish Clerk of Court, declaring her intent to
run for the office of Council Member, District 3, City of Donaldsonville. In
the Notice of Candidacy, Daigle certified that her domicile address was 918
Nolan Avenue, Donaldsonville, Louisiana!
On July 31, 2020, Reginald Francis, Sr. filed an Objection to the
Candidacy of Daigle, contending that Daigle did not meet the residency,
domicile, and voter registration requirements to qualify as a candidate for
the City of Donaldsonville Council, District 3. See La. R.S. 18: 492( A)(3).
The district court conducted a hearing on the matter on August 5,
2020, and subsequently signed a written judgment on Friday, August 7,
2020, disqualifying Daigle as a candidate for Council Member, City of
Donaldsonville, District 3. Seeking review of this judgment, Daigle filed a
Motion for a Devolutive Appeal on August 10, 2020.
On August 12, 2020, this court issued a Rule to Show Cause Order,
ordering the parties to show cause by briefs whether the appeal should or
One of the requirements to qualify as a candidate in a primary election is the
timely filing of a notice of candidacy, which shall be in writing and shall state the
candidate' s name, the office she seeks, the address of her domicile, and the parish, ward
and precinct where she is registered to vote. La. R.S. 18: 461( A)( 1) & 18: 463( A)( 1)( a).
2
should not be dismissed as untimely. Also on that date, Francis filed a
Motion to Dismiss Daigle' s appeal on the basis that it is untimely pursuant
to La. R.S. 18: 1409( D) and 18: 1413. Accordingly, we will first consider the
timeliness of Francis' s appeal.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to La. R.S. 18: 1409( D), "[ w] ithin twenty-four hours after
rendition ofjudgment, a party aggrieved by the judgment may appeal by
obtaining an order of appeal and giving bond for a sum fixed by the court to
secure the payment of costs." ( Emphasis added). Regarding the meaning of
rendition of judgment," La. R.S. 18: 1409( J) provides that "[ a] s used in this
Chapter, judgment shall be deemed to have been rendered when signed by
the judge." ( Emphasis added).
A party seeking relief under the Election Code must bring himself
within the strict provisions of the law governing election suits. Jackson v.
Myer, 2010- 2108 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 11/ 19/ 10), 52 So. 3d 271, 272. The
legislature in drafting and enacting the Election Code sought to expedite
contests involving candidacy. The short time delays are in the interest of the
electorate, not the private litigants. Jackson, 52 So. 3d at 272.
In the instant case, the district court signed its judgment on August 7,
2020. While La. R.S. 18: 1409( C), requires, in suits objecting to candidacy,
that the district court judge indicate the date and time rendered on the
judgment, the district court' s judgment herein does not indicate the precise
time on August 7, 2020 that it was rendered. Nonetheless, because the
judgment was signed on a Friday, the lack of the precise time of rendition is
not fatal to our determination as to timeliness of the motion for appeal.
3
With regard to contests and challenges filed pursuant to Chapter 9 of
the Election Code, which encompasses challenges to candidacy, La. R.S.
18: 1413 provides as follows:
Computation of all time intervals in this Chapter shall include
Sundays and other legal holidays. However, if the time interval
ends on a Sunday or other legal holiday, then noon of the next
legal day shall be deemed to be the end of the time interval.
Thus, where the time interval ends on a legal holiday, the grace period
provided by La. R.S. 18: 1413 is only until " noon of the next legal day." See
Mudge v. Magee, 98- 2177 ( La. App. 4' Cir. 9/ 10/ 98), 719 So. 2d 534, 535.
Because the twenty-four period following the district court' s rendition of its
August 7, 2020 judgment expired on Saturday, August 8, 2020, Daigle had
until noon on Monday, August 10, 2020, to perfect her appeal. See Lumar v.
Lawson, 20- 251 ( La. App. 5" Cir. 8/ 10/ 20), So. 3d , , 2020 WL
4580734, * 2, & Walker v. Rinicker, 29, 361 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 9/ 6/ 96), 681
So. 2d 1, 4.
However, the record of appeal demonstrates that Daigle did not file
her Motion for Devolutive Appeal until Monday, August 10, 2020, at 2: 15
p. m. Accordingly, we are compelled to conclude that Daigle' s failure to file
her motion for appeal prior to noon on Monday, August 10, 2020, is fatal to
her case. See Mudge, 719 So 2d at 535, & Bonvillain v. Bonvillain, 02-
01077 ( La. App. 3rd Cir. 9/ 5/ 02), 834 So. 2d 1051, 1051- 1052; also see
generally Brou v. Martin, 2008- 1685 ( La. 7/ 31/ 08), 987 So. 2d 249.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, Shentelle Daigle' s appeal of the
district court' s August 7, 2020 judgment, disqualifying her as a candidate
11
for Council Member, City of Donaldsonville, District 3, is dismissed.
Considering our ruling in this matter, Francis' s Motion to Dismiss Daigle' s
appeal as untimely is moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO DISMISS MOOT.
5