text:
    STATE ex rel. David LAPELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1657.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Lapell, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 95-4250; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-KEN478.

Denied. Petitioner’s most-recent application for post-conviction relief was denied with an order that conforms to the requirements of La. Const. art. V Section 8(B). State v. Lapell, 04-0478 (La.App. 5th Cir. 7/30/07) cf. State v. Cordero, 08-1717 (La.10/3/08) 993 So.2d 203.

WEIMER, J., concurs.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE ex rel. Jermaine SELTZER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1662.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Seltzer, Jermaine; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 07-1811; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KA-34.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Chauncey TAYLOR v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1663.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Taylor, Chauncey; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 01-4772; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-KH-420.

Denied. Petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief was denied with an order that conforms to the requirements of La. Const. art. V Section 8(B). State v. Taylor, 07-0420 (La.App. 5th Cir. 6/29/07) cf. State v. Cordero, 08-1717 (La.10/3/08) 993 So.2d 203.

WEIMER, J., concurs.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Nathaniel FOURNETTTE and Allen A. Robichaux.
    No. 2008-K-1815.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Robichaux, Allen; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 458-632; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-0254.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Nathaniel FOURNETTE and Allen S. Robichaux.
    No. 2008-K-1824.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Fournette, Nathaniel et al.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 458-632; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-0254.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Tyree YOUNG.
    No. 2008-K-2114.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Young, Tyree; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 370037; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KA 0170.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick ODOMES.
    No. 2008-KK-2494.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Odomes, Derrick; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 448361; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 1052.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.

KIMBALL, C.J., would grant.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Rhonda K. OLIVER v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-2662.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Oliver, Rhonda K.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 01-955; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KH-639.

Denied. Moot. The court of appeal has acted.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Antoine J. GILLIN.
    No. 2009-KK-0184.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 07-6589, 07-6590; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-K-1215.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James CHARGOIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0203.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Chargois, James; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. F, Nos. 96-36, 96-CR-36; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. KH 08-751, KH 08-1126.

Denied. Moot. The court of appeal has acted.


text:
    Shantell WASHINGTON and Alex Ducre, Individually and on Behalf of Alex Ducre, Jr. (Decedent) v. Dr. Phyllis D. WARING and Slidell Memorial Hospital and Medical Center.
    No. 2009-CC-0424.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Slidell Memorial Hospital and Medical Center; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2003-12951; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CW 1163.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    Patricia WARD and Eddie G. Ward, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE OF HIGHWAYS).
    No. 2009-C-0431.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Louisiana State of; Transportation and Development Department of; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bossier, 26th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 117079; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,948.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    Nancy DUPONT v. LOYOLA UNIVERSITY.
    No. 2009-OC-0437.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re United Educators Insurance Risk Retention Group Inc.; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. J, No. 2007-3203; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-C-0093.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    LOUISIANA SERVICE AND CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. v. ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT, Department of Public Works and Chris Merkl, in his Capacity as Acting Director of the St. Bernard Parish Department of Public Works.
    No. 2009-C-0439.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Louisiana Service and Contracting Company, Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying For, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 110-750; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-0174.

Denied.


text:
    Jean BOUDREAUX, et al. v. The STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
    No. 2009-CC-0460.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Boudreaux, Jean et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 71,408; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CW 2584.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Thomas E. MAHER and Gloria Maher v. The MCCARTY CORPORATION, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-0461.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Aber Company, Inc.; Anco Insu-lations, Inc.; B & B Engineering and Supply Company of Louisiana, Inc.; B & B Engineering and Supply Company, Inc.; Bituminous Fire and Marine Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; National Maintenance Corporation; National Maintenance Holding Company, LLC; Nichols Construction Company, LLC; Nichols Construction Corporation; Riley Power, Inc.; Travelers Indemnity Company; Turner Industries Group, L.L.C.; Turner Industries Holding company, L.L.C.; Turner Industries, L.L.C.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberville, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 65032; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CW 1873.

Denied.


text:
    Vickie Lasseigne MAYON v. Lianter ALBERT, M.D., et al.
    No. 2009-CC-0465.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Albert Dr., Lianter; Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 116438; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CW 2098.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant:


text:
    Robert DUNCAN, et al. v. MORENO ENERGY, INC., et al.
    No. 2009-C-0470.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Duncan, et al., Robert; Hodges, Charlie; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 107,506-C; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 08-786.

Denied.


text:
    Dianna BROUSSARD v. LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
    No. 2009-C-0471.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Lafayette Parish School Bd.;— Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 4, No. 00-01898; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-666.

Denied.


text:
    Billy KIBODEAUX v. PROGRESSIVE INS. CO., et al.
    No. 2009-C-0472.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Calcasieu Parish Police Jury; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.; — Defendants); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2003-5167; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA 08-791.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Shantell WASHINGTON and Alex Ducre, Individually and on Behalf of Alex Ducre, Jr. (Decedent) v. Dr. Phyllis D. WARING and Slidell Memorial Hospital and Medical Center.
    No. 2009-CC-0473.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Waring, Dr. Phyllis D.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2003-12951; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CW 1327.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION v. Percy GRAY, Jr.
    No. 2009-C-0476.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Gray Jr., Percy; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. N, No. 2006-743; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2007-CA-1433.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    Harry John WALSH, Jr. v. Jason MORRIS, M.D., et al.
    No. 2009-C-0478.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Walsh, Jean; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 224,306; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-885.

Denied.


text:
    Issac CRAFT, Tyris Fields, Devon M. Charles, Kent Hardy, Matthew W. Rucker, and Ervin Blatcher, Jr. v. LARD OIL COMPANY, INC., ACM Leasing, LLC, Federated Life Insurance Company, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, a/k/a the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, et al.
    No. 2009-C-0492.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Blatcher Jr., Ervin; Charles, Devon M.; Craft, Issac et al.; Fields, Tyris; Hardy, Kent; Rucker, Matthew W.;— PlaintifRs); Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 104-620; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-0915.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Everline KING, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Leon Nelms v. BROWN DEVELOPMENT, INC. d/b/a Olive Branch Senior Care and D. Brown Enterprises, Inc.
    No. 2009-C-0499.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Patients’ Compensation Fund;— Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 05-348; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,827-CA.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.


text:
    In re John H. CLEGG.
    No. 2009-OB-0500.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Clegg, John H.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Petition for Writ Pursuant to Rule 19 § 6 D & § 11, & La. R.S. 37:221(B)(3).

Denied. Premature. The parties may raise these issues by objection after the filing of the disciplinary board’s recommendation. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 11(G).


text:
    SUCCESSIONS OF Adrian Frayle Powell Wife of/and Robert Glenn POWELL.
    No. 2009-CC-0505.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Mott, Eulalie Anna TTE; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 655-937; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-C-1277.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    Fillis FRIEDMAN v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY.
    No. 2009-C-0507.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Friedman, Fillis; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2007-15174; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-0882.

Denied.


text:
    Ike FOLSE v. OUR LADY OF the LAKE HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center.
    No. 2009-C-0508.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Folse, Ike; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 529,449; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CA 1033.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Cornell WILLIAMS.
    No. 2009-KK-0510.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Williams, Cornell; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 477-107; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-1569.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    James H. STONE, Jr. v. ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.
    No. 2009-C-0511.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Stone, James H. Jr.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. H, No. 94-1537; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-0651.

Denied.


text:
    SUCCESSION OF Arthur Louis ROBINSON v. Suzanne D. HARLAN and Charles G. Harlan.
    No. 2009-CC-0515.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Harlan, Charles G.; Harlan, Suzanne D. et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 545-320; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 0139.

Denied.

KIMBALL, C.J., would grant.


text:
    Jonah Scott GUIDRY v. Jill Stelly GUIDRY.
    No. 2009-C-0517.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Guidry, Jill Stelly; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 07-C-3835-D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-1166.

Denied.


text:
    Kathryn FLOYD v. LA. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
    No. 2009-C-0519.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Floyd, Kathryn; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 2, No. 04-05784; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCA 08-899.

Denied.


text:
    ACADIAN AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. v. Nancy A. PESHOFF.
    No. 2009-C-0521.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Acadian Ambulance Service Inc.;— Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Comp. Dist. 3, No. 06-00677; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCA 08-937.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    ACADIAN AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. v. Jamie DARBONNE.
    No. 2009-C-0523.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Acadian Ambulance Service Inc.;— Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 4, No. 07-05589; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCA 08-983.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    CAJUNDOME COMMISSION v. Carl MECHE, Director Sales Tax, et al.
    No. 2009-C-0524.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Cajundome Commission; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 2007-3801; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 08-1057.

Denied.


text:
    FAITH CHURCH, et al. v. GUIDEONE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-0529.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Aparicio, Walker & Seeling Inc.;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. L, No. 2007-9089; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 08-C-1332.

Denied.


text:
    Kimberly HALEY, et al. v. WELLINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
    No. 2009-C-0532.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Haley, Kimberly et al.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 40-057; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44,-014-CA.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.

KNOLL, J., would grant.


text:
    The GUARISCO CO., INC. d/b/a Dawg & Brew; the Guarisco Co., Inc. d/b/a Sport’s City Deli; and Guarisco Co., Inc. d/b/a Soup & Salad Kitchen v. STATE of Louisiana, Louisiana State Police, and Louisiana Gaming Control Board.
    No. 2009-C-0536.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Louisiana Gaming Control Board; Louisiana State of et al.; Louisiana State Police; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 556,816; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CA 1034.

Denied.


text:
    Charlotte H. LITTLE and John Little, D.D.S. v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Micrus Corporation, Cook, Incorporated, Microvena Corporation, Cordis Corporation and Hospital Service District No. 1 of Jefferson Parish d/b/a West Jefferson Medical Center.
    No. 2009-C-0546.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Micrus Corporation; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 583-529; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-CA-271.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Michael RAMIREZ.
    No. 2009-KK-0693.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Ramirez, Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 2008-CR-49796; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 09-00248.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Mason GODFREY.
    No. 2009-K-0630.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 16,993-05; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. OS-828.

Granted.


text:
    Evangeline PORTER, Howard Bardell, Jr. and Thomas Porter v. Harry LEE, in his Capacity as Sheriff of the Parish of Jefferson, the State of Louisiana and Leo Mitchell.
    No. 2009-CC-0420.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 17, 2009.
   In re Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Div. of Probation and Parole; Louisiana State of; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/oi1 Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 553,105; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-C-1245.

Granted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. William H. SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0915.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 24, 2009.
   In re Smith, William H.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 459-457; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-0295.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on an application for post-conviction relief filed on or about November 25, 2008. If relator’s representation is correct, the distl’ict court is ordered to consider and act on the application. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file and act upon the pleading which is herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Vasilios PAPPAS.
    No. 2009-KK-0937.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2009.
   In re Pappas, Vasilios; — Defendant; Applying For, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 399616; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 0715.

Stay Denied. Writ Denied.


text:
    Tasha TINGLE, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Levi J. Tingle, et al. v. American Assurance Company, et al.
    No. 2009-CC-0941.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 27, 2009.
   In re Colony Insurance Co.; G.B. Boots Smith Corp.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 2006-5168, 2007-1073; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-00501.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jerry RICHARDSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2005-KH-1945.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 29, 2009.
   In re Richardson, Jerry; — Plaintiff; Applying for Motion to Enforce this Court’s Order dated December 16, 2006; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 262-970.

Motion denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    Deborah Ann FOLEY v. Thomas Michael FOLEY.
    No. 2009-CC-0929.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    April 30, 2009.
   In re Foley, Thomas Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2001-005088; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 09-00448.

Stay denied. Writ denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Raymond DARNELL.
    No. 2008-K-2258.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Darnell, Raymond; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 251,486; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,-048-KA.

Writ not considered. Not timely filed.


text:
    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY as Subrogee of Yvette Norman v. Gregory R. LEROUGE, Mary J. LeRouge, Hartford Insurance Company, Donnell L. Ducre, Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, and National Union Fire Insurance Company Mary Jane LeRouge and Shirley LeRouge v. New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Donnell L. Ducre, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest and Gregory R. LeRouge, Yvette Norman and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Gregory R. LeRouge v. New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board, National Union Fire Insurance Company, Donnell L. Ducre, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Yvette Norman and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
    No. 2009-C-124.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Ducre, Donnell L. et al.; Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans; — Defendant (s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts order dated March 27, 2009; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. N, Nos. 2003-2417, 2003-4284, 2003-4285; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2007-CA-0918, 2007-CA-0919, 2007-CA-0920.

Not Considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    EAST TANGIPAHOA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLD and Byard Edwards, Jr. v. BEDICO JUNCTION, LLC, Wayne Glascock, Don Ayres and Harold Perrilloux.
    No. 2009-C-0166.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re East Tangipahoa Devi. Co. LLC et al.; Edwards Jr., Byard; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts order dated March 27, 2009; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2006-002358; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 CA 1262.

Reconsideration not considered. See Rule IX, Sec. 6 of the Sup.Ct. Rules.


text:
    Renee CHRISTENSON and David Christenson v. Lee MADERE, Jerrelyn Jessop Madere and Les Carillons Condominium Association, Inc.
    No. 2009-CC-0612.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Christenson, David; Christenson, Renee et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2007-9243; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-C-1356.

Not considered. Not timely filed. See Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5.


text:
    Renee CHRISTENSON and David Christenson v. Lee MADERE, Jerrelyn Jessop Madere and Les Carillons Condominium Association, Inc.
    No. 2009-CC-0613.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Christenson, David; Christenson, Renee et al.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. G, No. 2007-9243; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-C-1357.

Not considered. Not timely filed.


text:
    STATE ex rel. James BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-0783.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Brown, James; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Courts action dated December 19, 2008; Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 04-F1627; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43201-KH.

Reconsideration denied. Moot. The district court has acted.


text:
    Celia M. LAUVE v. Richard M. LAUVE.
    No. 2009-C-0570.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Lauve, Celia M.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 24, 2009; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 2000-8949; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-0076.

Reconsideration denied. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 6.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terrence C. ANDERSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2006-KH-0739.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Anderson, Terrence C.; — Defendants); Applying for Motion to Enforce this Court’s Order dated September 29,-2006; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court; Div. A; No. 239925; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 05-00422.

Denied. Moot. The district attorney has acted.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Claude HULIN v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-0734.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Hulin, Claude; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 246,759; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 KW 2583.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. John E. WESTLEY, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-982.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Westley, Jr., John E.; — -Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated January 30, 2009; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 265,799; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 07-01484.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Elaine BAILEY.
    No. 2008-KP-1282.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 7-97-365; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 0021.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ernest BILLIZONE, Sr. v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1294.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Billizone, Ernest Sr.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 06-6669; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KH-344.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. In the Interest of A.P.
    No. 2008-KP-1306.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Confidential Party; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, Juvenile Court East Baton Rouge, No. 86676; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 0721.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Barry DIGGS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1703.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Diggs, Barry; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 359887; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2008 KW 0710.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Vernon WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1707.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Williams, Vernon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 03-2956; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-KH-1041.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Joseph WINZY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1708.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Winzy, Joseph; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 544,725; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2007 CA 2195.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Terry Joe FIELDS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1709.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Fields, Terry Joe; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 169,987; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43732-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; State v. Parker, 98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694;La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; State ex rel. Melinie v. State, 93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172; La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(A).


text:
    STATE ex rel. Gary WILSON v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1711.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Wilson, Gary; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. H, No. 330-563; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-0340.

Denied. See State ex rel. Fleury v. State, 93-2898 (La.10/13/95), 661 So.2d 488.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Walter BAILEY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1955.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Bailey, Walter; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 02-2801; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KH-351.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. David Allen WADDY v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1958.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Waddy, David Allen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. D, Nos. 256,709, 256,-710, 257,648; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 08-00414.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; State ex rel. Glover v. State, 93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Robert WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1959.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Williams, Robert; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 411-522; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-K-0877.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Ronnie Deon RUSSELL v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-1962.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In- re Russell, Ronnie Deon; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 235,259; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,-745-KH.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Byron L. DAVIS.
    No. 2008-KO-2188.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Davis, Byron L.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 02-5841; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KA-165.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Frank V. AGEE.
    No. 2008-KO-2190.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Agee, Frank V.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 466-544; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-KA-0203.

Denied.


text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Carlos LEWIS.
    No. 2008-KO-2199.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Lewis, Carlos; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Union, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 43,722; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,402-KA.

Denied.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Byron DAVIS v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2008-KH-2200.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Davis, Byron; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 02-5841; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-KA-165.

Denied.


text:
    Kent Louis KRAMER, Jr., et al. v. PETROLEUM HELICOPTERS, INC. et al.
    No. 2009-C-0402.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re McLaud, Janice; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 981262; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. OS-133.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.


text:
    Lydia BOXIE v. TOWN OF SUNSET.
    No. 2009-CC-0595.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Sunset Town of; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. 2, No. 07-01553; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. WCW 08-01393.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.


text:
    Celia M. LAUVE v. Richard M. LAUVE.
    No. 2009-C-0557.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Lauve, Richard M.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 2000-8949; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-0076.

Denied.

KIMBALL, C.J., would grant.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant.


text:
    EAST BATON ROUGE SEWERAGE COMMISSION v. The MOSTAFA AND DONNA KHOSRAVANIPOUR CHILDREN’S TRUST NO. 1 Parish of East Baton Rouge v. The Mostafa and Donna Khosravanipour Children’s Trust No. 1.
    No. 2009-C-0597.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re East Baton Rouge Sewerage Commission; East Baton Rouge, Parish of;— Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certio-rari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. J, Nos. 382,698, 398,966; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2008 CA 0994, 2008 CA 0995.

Denied.


text:
    James David WRIGHT and Robert Wright, Jr. v. Linda Wright Gore LARSON, the Estate of Robert E. Wright, Sr., and Agent Financial Group, Inc. f/k/a the Trust Company of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-CD-0600.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Wright Jr., Robert E.; Wright, James David; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 48,475; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 44577-CW.

Denied.


text:
    OAKVILLE COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH COUNCIL, Benny Rousselle, in His Official Capacity as Executive Board Member and Parish President, and Joseph Clark, Amos Cormier, Rick Fremin, John Friedman, and Jerry Hodnet, in Their Official Capacities as Plaquemines Parish Council Members.
    No. 2009-C-0620.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Industrial Pipe Inc.; — Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 50-697; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-C-1286.

Denied.


text:
    OAKVILLE COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP v. PLAQUEMINES PARISH COUNCIL, Benny Rousselle, in His Official Capacity as Executive Board Member and Parish President, and Joseph Clark, Amos Cormier, Rick Fremin, John Friedman, and Jerry Hodnet, in Their Official Capacities as Plaquemines Parish Council Members.
    No. 2009-C-0621.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Plaquemines Parish Council; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaquemines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 50-697; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2008-CA-1286.

Denied.


text:
    Donald A. NEEDOM, Stanford S. Collins, Nevell A. Choina, Jr., Frank J. Cina, Alfredo Digregorio, Robert H. Dudenhefer, Louis J. Gentry, Sr., et al. v. Louis L. ROBEIN, Jr. and XYZ Insurance Company Gerald J. Boesch, Robert M. Buisson, Sr., Terry Lonatro, Ralph W. Maronge, Gary L. Montegue, Frank O’Halloran, III, Lynn A. Wattigny v. Louis L. Robein, Jr. and XYZ Insurance Company.
    No. 2009-C-0635.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Needom, Donald A. et al. and Boesch, Gerald J. et al. — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, Nos. 2005-7076, 2005-12408; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2008-CA-0319, 2008-CA-0318.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., recused.


text:
    STATE ex rel. Jose Lima CASTRO v. STATE of Louisiana.
    No. 2009-KH-0795.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 1, 2009.
   In re Castro, Jose Lima; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, No. 05-4125; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-K-1250, 09-K-156.

Denied. Moot.


author: WHIPPLE, J.

text:
    Audrey BRADFORD v. Evelyn S. COODY, Robert Sanford Simon, Lawrence Randall Simon, Debra Dixon and Stan Karusee.
    No. 2008 CA 1059.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Dec. 23, 2008.
    John F. McKay, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Audrey Bradford.
    Peter T. Dudley, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant, Debra Dixon.
    Keith L. Richardson Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants/Appellees, Evelyn S. Coody, Robert Sanford Simon, and Lawrence Randall Simon.
    Before CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE, and DOWNING, JJ.
   WHIPPLE, J.

| ¿This is an appeal from a judgment in a dog-bite case granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the owners of the property leased by the dog owner and dismissing plaintiffs claims against the homeowners with prejudice. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 1, 2006, plaintiff, Audrey Bradford, an employee of United Broadband, was installing cable in a home located on North 5th Street in Baton Rouge. Upon completing the work, Bradford returned to her truck, which was parked in front of a house located at 504 Lakeland Drive, which was adjacent to the house where she had been working. At that time, a man, later identified as Stan Karu-see, exited the house at 504 Lakeland Drive with two dogs, a pit bull and a dachshund. Although Bradford asked Karusee to keep the dogs away from her, Karusee ignored Bradford and approached with the dogs. Karusee then placed his hands on Bradford, and, at that point, the dogs attacked her, biting her on the leg and the ear.

Bradford then instituted the instant suit for damages, naming as defendants, Karu-see, the owner of the pit bull; Debra Dixon, the owner of the dachshund; and Evelyn S. Coody, Robert Sanford Simon, and laLawrence Randall Simon, the owners of the home located at 504 Lakeland Drive, where Karusee resided. Thereafter, Coody, Robert Simon, and Lawrence Simon filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that because they had no knowledge of the dangerous propensities of the dogs, they could not be liable for the injuries caused by Karusee’s and Dixon’s dogs.

Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing with prejudice Bradford’s claims against Coody, Robert Simon, and Lawrence Simon. From this judgment, Bradford appeals, contending that the trial court erred in failing to find that Coody, the owner and occupier/lessor of the land, had knowledge of the vicious nature of the dogs and in failing to consider the inconsistencies between Coody’s affidavit and deposition while improperly determining the facts based on her credibility. Because these issues are interrelated, we will discuss them together, rather than individually.

DISCUSSION

Burden of Proof and Standard of Review for Summary Judgment

A motion for summary judgment is properly granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(B).

The summary judgment procedure is expressly favored in the law and is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of non-domestic civil actions. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits in the record show that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(B).

I/Fhe mover bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to summary judgment. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). However, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the subject matter of the motion, he need only demonstrate the absence of factual support for one or more essential elements of his opponent’s claim, action, or defense. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). If the moving party points out that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, then the nonmoving party must produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden at trial. LSA-C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). If the mover has put forth supporting proof through affidavits or otherwise, the adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. LSA-C.C.P. art. 967(B).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court’s role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. Hines v. Garrett, 2004-0806 (La.6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764, 765. Despite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent’s favor. Willis v. Medders, 2000-2507 (La.12/8/00), 775 So.2d 1049, 1050.

In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. See 5Barnett v. Watkins, 2006-2442 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/19/07), 970 So.2d 1028, 1033, writ denied, 2007-2066 (La.12/14/07), 970 So.2d 537.

Landlord’s Liability for Damage Caused by Tenant’s Animal

Although a landlord is strictly liable for vices or defects of his building, he is not strictly liable to a third person for injuries caused by his tenant’s animal. The strict liability of the animal owner pursuant to LSA-C.C. art. 2321 cannot be imputed to a non-owner. Windham v. Murray, 2006-1275 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/30/07), 960 So.2d 328, 332; Tumbow v. Wye Electric, Inc., 38,948 (La.App. 2nd Cir.9/22/04), 883 So.2d 469, 471-472; Murillo v. Hernandez, 00-1065 (La.App. 5th Cir.10/31/00), 772 So.2d 868, 871.

However, the landlord may still be liable for negligence pursuant to LSA-C.C. arts. 2315 and 2316 if there is a violation of a duty and that violation is a cause-in-fact of an injury. Courts have held that where the landlord had actual knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensity, a duty of care arises which may lead to liability pursuant to LSA-C.C. art. 2316 for violation of that duty. Windham, 960 So.2d at 332; Turnbow, 883 So.2d at 472; Murillo, 772 So.2d at 871.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, Coody, Robert Simon, and Lawrence Simon filed their own affidavits. In their affidavits, Coody and Robert Simon attested that: (1) at the time of the attack, they were co-owners of the property in question; (2) they did not own the pit bull or dachshund involved in the attack; (3) although they recalled knowing that there was a pit bull on the premises, on the “infrequent” occasions they had previously observed the pit bull, it acted calm and friendly; and (4) they were unaware of any violent, dangerous, or aggressive tendencies on the part of the pit bull and had never witnessed any such behavior by the dog which | ¿would give rise to any questions about it being potentially violent, dangerous, or aggressive. Lawrence Simon attested that while he also was a co-owner of the house, he did not own either dog and was unaware of any violent, dangerous, or aggressive tendencies on the part of the “subject animal” and had never witnessed any behavior on the “animal’s” part which would give rise to any questions about it potentially being violent, dangerous, or aggressive.

In opposition to the motion, Bradford filed the deposition of Coody and various affidavits. Coody testified that, at the time of the attack, she lived in the home located at 504 Lakeland Drive, which she owned with her two nephews, Robert and Lawrence Simon. At some time during the year 2005, Coody began inquiring at the local grocery store about whether anyone would be interested in earning some money by painting her house. Karusee then began working for Coody on her home, and, eventually, Coody agreed that Karusee could live upstairs at her home while he performed work for her. Coody allowed Karusee to reside in the house without paying rent because he was painting the house and performing other odd jobs for her. Coody was aware that Karu-see was bipolar, and she assisted him in going to doctor’s visits and in getting his medication for the disorder. She was also aware that he drank alcohol, but thought he was a “sociable drinker.”

About six months before the attack, Ka-rusee found the pit bull, and Coody allowed him to keep it at the house. According to Coody, Karusee told her that he found the dog on the levee. The pit bull was kept in the feneed-in backyard and upstairs, which the dog could access from the |7backyard. The fence had a “Beware of Dog” sign on it that Coody had installed because of a previous tenant’s dog.

With regard to the dachshund, this dog was owned by a friend of Karusee, Debra Dixon. Although Dixon did not live at Coody’s house, the dachshund stayed both at Coody’s house and at Dixon’s house, and Coody estimated that the dachshund actually spent more time at her house than at Dixon’s.

Coody testified that she saw the pit bull on a daily basis and the dachshund on a regular basis when it was at her home (contrary to her statement in her affidavit that she saw them infrequently), and that she had never witnessed any behavior suggesting that the dogs were dangerous and was unaware of any violent, dangerous, or aggressive tendencies on the part of these dogs.

However, in her affidavit filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Bradford attested that when Coody, who was not home at the time of the attack, arrived at the scene, she began berating Karusee and stated to him, “Why did you let those damn dogs out of the gate. I have told you over and over again to keep the dogs in the fence. You know those dogs can bite.” Bradford farther attested that she spoke to Coody the day after the incident, and during that conversation, Coody told her that Coody had observed the pit bull chasing other people and that was why Coody was concerned. Coody further indicated to Bradford during the conversation that Karusee was bipolar. According to Bradford, Coody also stated to her that she had been telling Karusee not to let the dogs out because they would bite someone.

Bradford also submitted the affidavit of Ernest Veals, who was employed by United Broadband and was installing cable with Bradford on |8the day of the dog attack. Veals attested that when Coody arrived at the scene after the attack, she immediately began arguing with Karusee and told Karusee that she had told him many times to watch the dogs and restrain them because they would bite someone. According to Veals, Coody further stated that she had told Karusee on numerous occasions to put the dogs up because she knew something like this would happen.

Bradford also attested that after the attack, Karusee told her that the pit bull had been taken from a “crack house” and had been abused. Veal similarly attested that, at the scene, he heard Karusee say that the pit bull had come from a “crack house, had been abused, and he had raised the dog.” When questioned in her deposition about whether Karusee had ever told her that the pit bull had been abused, Coody responded, “I don’t know.”

With regard to the statements by Bradford and Veal that they heard Coody say that she had told Karusee to keep the dogs restrained up because they would bite someone, Coody denied that she made such a statement. Coody acknowledged that she had berated Karusee at the scene for taking the dogs out without a leash. When asked if she also told him that he knew the dogs could bite, Coody responded, “Well, I told them every dog could bite. They have teeth.”

Considering the foregoing and the record as a whole, we conclude that the trial court erred, in part, in granting the motion for summary judgment. With regard to Bradford’s claims against Robert and Lawrence Simon, these defendants presented affidavits, stating that they had no knowledge of any dangerous propensities of the dogs in question, and Bradford offered no evidence to controvert those statements. Thus, Robert Simon and Lawrence Simon established them entitlement to summary judgment.

1¡¿However, with regard to Coody, the evidence offered in support of and in opposition to the motion for summary judgment reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to Coody’s knowledge of the dogs’ dangerous propensities. Specifically, there are glaring conflicts in the testimony of Coody, Bradford, and Veal regarding Coody’s statements to Karusee at the scene of the incident as to whether the dogs would bite someone if unleashed. Moreover, there is a conflict in the testimony of Coody and Bradford regarding Coody’s alleged statement to Bradford that Coody had previously witnessed the dogs chasing other people. Finally, there is a conflict in Coody’s own testimony in her deposition and affidavit as to how often she saw the dogs and other important facts relevant to her knowledge of their dangerous propensities.

The inconsistencies in the testimony as to Coody’s knowledge of the dangerous propensities of these dogs, together with Coody’s uncontradicted knowledge of Ka-rusee’s bipolar condition and consumption of alcoholic beverages, are at the heart of Bradford’s theory of recovery against Coody, ie., negligence on the part of Coody in allowing such dogs to remain on the premises or to remain under the care of Karusee. See generally Windham, 960 So.2d at 333. Resolution of these conflicts in the testimony is inappropriate on summary judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment as to Coody and in dismissing Bradford’s claims against her. See George v. Paffen, 06-890 (La.App. 5th Cir.5/15/07), 957 So.2d 861, reversed, 2007-1430 (La.10/26/07), 966 So.2d 562, where the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s affirmation of summary judgment, as plaintiffs had presented evidence that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the landlord had knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities.

hnCONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, the portion of the May 2, 2008 judgment granting the motion for summary judgment of Robert Sanford Simon and Lawrence Randall Simon and dismissing with prejudice Audrey Bradford’s claims against Robert Simon and Lawrence Simon is affirmed. The portion of the judgment granting the motion for summary judgment as to Evelyn Coody and dismissing with prejudice Audrey Bradford’s claims against Evelyn Coody is reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

Costs of this appeal are assessed against Evelyn Coody.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

      . The spelling of Karusee’s name is unclear from the record. In the petition, it is spelled "Karusee,” but it is also spelled "Karusse” in an affidavit in the record. The record does not contain an answer filed by this defendant. For purposes of this opinion, we spell his name as it appears in the petition.

      . These facts were taken from deposition testimony and affidavits submitted in connection with the motion for summary judgment and were undisputed.

      . On the day of the dog attack, Karusee had apparently been consuming alcohol.


author: CARTER, C.J.

text:
    PIAZZA’S SEAFOOD WORLD, LLC v. Bob ODOM, Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of Louisiana.
    Nos. 2007 CA 2191, 2007 CW 2077.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Dec. 23, 2008.

      Kim Raines Chatelain, E. John Litch-field, Carey B. Daste, New Orleans, LA, for Defendanh-Appellant, Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of Louisiana.
    Shelton Dennis Blunt, Paul LeBlanc, Laranda L. Moffett, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Piazza’s Seafood World, LLC.
    Before CARTER, C.J., PETTIGREW, and WELCH, JJ.
   CARTER, C.J.

|2This action for preliminary injunction addresses the scope of authority granted to the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry for the State of Louisiana (the Commissioner) with respect to the promulgation of agency regulations regarding inspections for certain antibiotics in imported seafood. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining the Commissioner’s authority to enforce the agency regulations at issue, and we deny each of the Commissioner’s exceptions and writ application filed in this court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts pertinent to this appeal were jointly stipulated by the parties, and thus are not in dispute. Plaintiff, Piazza’s Seafood World, LLC (Piazza), is an importer, purchaser, and wholesaler of seafood, with storage facilities in Louisiana. Defendant, Commissioner Bob Odom, was the head of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry for the State of Louisiana at all times relevant to this lawsuit. The dispute between Piazza and the Commissioner arose after the Commissioner issued a series of stop orders in May 2007, precluding Piazza from selling or disposing of fish imported from China until the fish had been tested for the presence of Fluoroquinolones, an antibiotic that has been determined to be a public health risk by the federal government. In order to seize Piazza’s seafood for testing, the Commissioner relied on the authority of regulations he | ¡¡promulgated for the Department in January 2007, La. Admin. Code 7:XXXV.501, 503, 505, and 511 (the regulations).

Piazza initially sought a preliminary injunction in federal district court that would order the Commissioner to immediately release the seized fish so that Piazza could sell the-fish outside the State of Louisiana. Piazza argued that the preliminary injunction should be granted because the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner violated the Commerce Clause and that the Commissioner had acted outside the scope of his constitutional and statutory authority, and thus, the regulations were unconstitutional under Louisiana law. The federal court abstained from hearing any issues, thereby staying the action “pending state court resolution of the [Cjommissioner’s authority to enact the disputed regulations.” Additionally, the federal court issued another order on July 3, 2007, ordering Piazza “to file a petition in state court seeking a determination of whether the [Commissioner had authority to issue [the regulations]” and enjoining the Commissioner “from conducting ... any ... hearings involving [Piazza] until such time as a final state court decision resolves the validity of [the regulations].” Piazza immediately filed a petition for preliminary and permanent injunction in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court on the same day the federal court issued its order, alleging in its petition that the Commissioner had no legislative |4authority to promulgate the regulations, and that therefore, the regulations were unconstitutional.

On July 11, 2007, Piazza filed a motion for preliminary injunction in the district court requesting that the Commissioner be enjoined from enforcing the regulations while the suit was pending. A hearing was held on August 1, 2007, and after consideration of the parties’ stipulations and evidence, the district court granted Piazza’s request for preliminary injunction, enjoining and restraining the Commissioner from enforcing any of the challenged regulations until a final resolution of the case. In oral reasons for issuing the preliminary injunction, the district court judge concluded that the Commissioner did “not have [the] authority, either under the constitution, statutorily, or otherwise, to promulgate the regulations in question.” The Commissioner filed a motion for new trial, arguing for the first time that Piazza had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before proceeding with the district court action. The district court summarily denied the Commissioner’s motion for new trial on August 22, 2007. The Commissioner’s motion for appeal followed on August 27, 2007; however, the district court judge did not sign the order granting the Commissioner’s motion for appeal until September 17, 2007.

Before the Commissioner’s motion for appeal was granted, the Commissioner filed a dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity and a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action on September 4, 2007 in the district court. Both exceptions were based on Piazza’s alleged failure to comply with administrative procedures under LSA-R.S. 49:963 D, by seeking to have the Commissioner first pass on the validity or applicability of the regulations before bringing an action in the | ^district court. On September 17, 2007, the district court denied the Commissioner’s exceptions, finding them to be untimely, and further finding that the administrative procedure was unnecessary under these particular facts. The Commissioner applied for supervisory writs to this court, seeking review of the denial of the exceptions. On March 19, 2008, this court referred the writ application to the merits of the appeal on the judgment granting the preliminary injunction, because the merits of both the writ and the appeal are intertwined. Additionally, the Commissioner filed in this court a declinatory exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action. We will first address the exceptions filed in this court and then the exceptions under review in the writ application. Finally, we will address the merits of the judgment granting the preliminary injunction.

THE EXCEPTIONS

The Commissioner’s exceptions filed in this court are both based on his reasoning that because Piazza did not follow the mandatory administrative remedy required by LSA-R.S. 49:963 D, by first seeking the Commissioner’s ruling on the validity of the regulations at issue before filing suit in district court, Piazza did not have a cause of action to enjoin the Commissioner from enforcing the regulations, and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the regulations and enjoin the enforcement of the regulations. Initially, we note that the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and at any stage of an action; therefore, we will consider the Commissioner’s arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction. See McPherson v. Foster, 03-2696 (La.10/29/04), 889 So.2d 282, 288. Likewise, because the Commissioner had previously filed 1 r,the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action in the district court and the Commissioner’s writ application for review of the district court’s ruling on that exception is currently before us, we will consider the merits of that exception as well.

All of the Commissioner’s exceptions filed in this court and at the district court contend that under the terms of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act (the LAPA), the district court was statutorily precluded from determining the validity of the regulations. Louisiana Revised Statute 49:963 provides for judicial review of a rule “in an action for declaratory judgment in the district court of the parish in which the agency is located.” LSA-R.S. 49:963 A(l). The district “court shall declare the rule invalid or inapplicable if it finds that it violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency.” See LSA-R.S. 49:963 C. However, LSA-R.S. 49:963 D provides that an action for a declaratory judgment under LSA-R.S. 49:963,

may be brought only after the plaintiff has requested the agency to pass upon the validity or applicability of the rule in question and only upon a showing that review of the validity and applicability of the rule in conjunction with review of a final agency decision in a contested adjudicated case would not provide an adequate remedy and would inflict irreparable injury.

Piazza’s petition seeks injunctive relief with a declaration that the regulations are unconstitutional, and therefore, void and unenforceable.

Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by the Louisiana Constitution and not by statute. Star Enterprise v. State, through Dept. of Revenue and Taxation, 95-1980 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/28/96), 676 So.2d 827, 833, writ denied, 96-1983 (La.3/14/97), 689 So.2d 1383. Louisiana Constitution Article 5, Section 16 vests Louisiana district courts with original jurisdiction |7over all civil matters, except as otherwise authorized by the Constitution. Id. A challenge to the validity of an administrative rule or regulation is a “civil matter” falling under the original jurisdiction of the district courts. Id. The Constitution also vests district courts with the power to issue all orders and process in the aid of their jurisdiction. LSA-Const. art. 5, § 2; Id. Thus, the power of the district court to issue an injunction preventing enforcement of an illegally adopted administrative regulation is also of constitutional origin. Id. The legislature could not, by statute, divest the district court of its constitutional subject matter jurisdiction to determine the legality of administrative regulations, and to issue an injunction preventing enforcement if the regulations are found to be illegally promulgated. Id. Accordingly, we reject the Commissioner’s argument that LSA-R.S. 49:963 divested the district court of its subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding.

Piazza’s petition for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief seeks an injunction enjoining the Commissioner’s enforcement of the regulations that Piazza asserts are unconstitutional because they were promulgated without legislative authority and they violated the exclusive jurisdiction of another state agency, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH). The determination of whether a statute is unconstitutional is a purely judicial function. ANR Pipeline Co. v. La. Tax Com’n, 02-1479 (La.7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1145, 1150. The Commissioner is part of the executive branch of state government, as the head of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (the department), and enjoys the powers authorized by the constitution and statutes. LSA-Const. art. 4, § 1 A; |sLSA-Const. art. 4, § 10. An administrative agency such as the department and its Commissioner do not have the authority to determine the constitutionality of statutes. See ANR Pipeline Co., 851 So.2d at 1150. The fact that the Legislature has granted the department the general authority “to pass upon the validity or applicability” of the regulations in question does not, and cannot give the department or the Commissioner subject matter jurisdiction over constitutional questions. With few exceptions, Louisiana district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters. LSA-Const. art. 5, § 16 A. It is the district court that has original jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of statutes. ANR Pipeline Co., 851 So.2d at 1151. Thus, agency review of the constitutionality of the regulations was not a prerequisite to Piazza’s filing an action for injunctive relief since only the district court could decide the constitutionality of the regulations. Louisiana Chemical Ass’n v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, 577 So.2d 230, 234 (La.App. 1 Cir.1991).

Because Piazza’s claims for injunc-tive relief are based on constitutional challenges, we find that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on Piazza’s motion for preliminary injunction. Therefore, we deny the Commissioner’s declinatory exception raising the objection of subject matter jurisdiction. For the same reason, we deny the Commissioner’s peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, and we find that the district court properly denied the | flCommissioner’s dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity, as well as the Commissioner’s peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action. We hereby deny the Commissioner’s application for supervisory review of the district court’s denial of its dilatory exception raising the objection of prematurity and peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action.

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Next, the Commissioner argues that the district court erred in granting Piazza’s motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby enjoining and restraining the Commissioner from enforcing the challenged regulations until a final resolution of the case. The district court agreed with Piazza’s position and ruled that the Commissioner had no constitutional or statutory authority to promulgate the regulations in question. A party aggrieved by a judgment either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is entitled to an appeal. LSA-C.C.P. art. 3612; Concerned Citizens for Proper Planning, LLC v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 04-0270 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 906 So.2d 660, 663.

Generally, a party seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction must show that it will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction does not | inissue and it must show entitlement to the relief sought. However, a showing of irreparable injury is not necessary when the act sought to be enjoined is unlawful. Dale v. Louisiana Secretary of State, 07-2020 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/11/07), 971 So.2d 1136, 1141. To establish entitlement to the relief sought, the party must make a prima facie showing that it will prevail on the merits of the case. Id. Before issuing a preliminary injunction, the trial court should also consider whether the threatened harm to the plaintiff outweighs the potential for harm or inconvenience to the defendant and whether the issuance of the preliminary injunction will disserve the public interest. Id. The district court enjoys considerable discretion in determining whether a preliminary injunction is warranted. Thus, the district court’s ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id.

Piazza’s petition alleges that the Commissioner lacked statutory or constitutional authority to regulate the sanitary inspection of seafood that is raised, processed, and packaged outside the state of Louisiana, because DHH has the exclusive authority to promulgate regulations concerning the sanitary inspection of food products that may affect the public health and safety of Louisiana citizens. The Louisiana legislature has provided that DHH has Inauthority to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations embodied within the state’s Sanitary Code found at LSA-R.S. 40:4. See LSA-R.S. 40:5. The Sanitary Code at LSA-R.S, 40:4 A(l) specifically provides, in pertinent part:

A. (l)(a) In order to protect the consuming public against food-borne disease, the rules and regulations contained in the Sanitary Code shall be designed so as to provide and require that all food products, including ... marine and freshwater seafood ..., are produced from a safe and sanitary source, and are prepared, processed, packaged, handled, stored, and transported in a sanitary manner which will prevent contamination, spoilage, or adulteration.
(b) ... The department shall adopt rules as part of the Sanitary Code and the Department of Agriculture and Forestry shall adopt rules as part of the Seafood Inspection Program.
B. (1) All sanitary and food and drug inspections to monitor compliance with the provisions of the state [Sjanitary [C]ode shall be conducted by licensed sanitarians in the employ of the Department of Health and Hospitals, or by similarly licensed sanitarians in the employ of a local parish or municipal governing authority. (Emphasis added.)

The relevant regulation promulgated by the Commissioner, LAC7.-XXXV.511, purports to regulate the content of seafood for the alleged purpose of protecting the public health and safety by determining the presence of the antibiotic, Fluoroquino-lones, in the seafood prior to its distribution and sale in Louisiana. The regulation states that it was “adopted in accordance with” the Louisiana Weights and Measures Law (LSA-R.S.3:4608) and the legislative provisions providing for the creation, powers, _Jjjand duties of the Commissioner (LSA-R.S. 3:2 A and 3:3 B). However, none of the alleged enabling statutes reveal authority for the Commissioner to regulate the content of seafood distributed or sold in Louisiana.

The Weights and Measures Law involves standards for weighing and measuring agricultural commodities or products and the devices used for their weight and/or measurement. See LSA-R.S. 3:4607 and 3:4608. The statutes governing the creation, powers, and duties of the Commissioner involve the promotion, protection, and advancement of agriculture and forestry in Louisiana, which does not include seafood or the contents of seafood. Furthermore, no party has referenced any statute and our research has not revealed any authority for the Commissioner to regulate the content of seafood under a “Seafood Inspection Program” as referenced and provided by the Legislature in the Sanitary Code. See LSA-R.S. 40:4 and 40:5. Therefore, while we recognize the Commissioner’s laudable goal of inspecting and regulating the content of seafood in Louisiana, the Commissioner’s authority to do so is simply not provided for under the existing statutory scheme. Such authority is currently reserved by statute to the state health officer and the office of public health of DHH. See LSA-R.S. 40:5 and LSA-R.S. 40:604.

The regulations promulgated by an agency may not exceed the authorization delegated by the Legislature. State v. Alfonso, 99-1546 (La.11/23/99), 753 So.2d 156, 162. An agency is not free to pursue any and all ends, but can assert authority only over those ends that are connected to the task delegated by the legislative body. Id.; Realty Mart, Inc. v. Louisiana Bd. of Tax Appeals, 336 So.2d 52, 54 (La.App. 1 Cir.1976). Because we have concluded that the regulation at issue was promulgated without [^legislative or constitutional authority, we find that the district court properly issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Commissioner’s authority to enforce the unlawful regulation. See Star Enterprise, 676 So.2d at 834. Considering the evidence in the record before us, we find that the district court acted within its sound discretion in granting the preliminary injunction in this case. See Dale, 971 So.2d at 1141.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining and restraining the Commissioner from enforcing any of the challenged regulations until a final resolution of the case. We also deny the Commissioner’s application for a supervisory writ of review in 2007 CW 2077 that was referred to the merits of this appeal, as well as all of the exceptions filed by the Commissioner in this court. We remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and to be conducted as expeditiously as possible. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $2,254.00 are assessed against the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry for the State of Louisiana.

WRIT DENIED; EXCEPTIONS DENIED; ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AFFIRMED; AND REMANDED.

      . While this suit was pending on appeal, Dr. Mike Strain was elected to the office of Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. For consistency, however, we simply refer to the defendant as "the Commissioner.”

      . See 21 C.F.R. 530.41 (a)(l0).

      . Louisiana Administrative Code 7:XXXV.501, 503, and 505 apply only to crab, crawfish, or shrimp, while LAC 7;XXXV.511 applies to fish. The seizures involved in this case were of fish; therefore, the only relevant regulation is LAC 7:XXXV.511.

      . The federal court ruling was issued on June 18, 2007, in Civil Action 07-413, by the Honorable James J. Brady of the U.S. Middle District Court of Louisiana under the authority of the Pullman Doctrine. See Railroad Commission of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941).

      . Louisiana Constitution Article 4, § 1A provides in pertinent part: "The executive branch shall consist of the ... commissioner of agriculture ... and all other executive offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the state.” Louisiana Constitution Article 4, § 10 provides in pertinent part: "The commissioner of agriculture shall head the department and shall exercise all functions of the state relating to the promotion, protection, and advancement of agriculture,.... The ... commissioner shall have other powers and perform other duties authorized by this constitution or provided by law.”

      . We note in this ruling on the Commissioner's writ application (2007 CW 2077) that it appears the district court maintained authority to rule on the exceptions after ruling on the merits of the preliminary injunction, since the district court maintained jurisdiction to render a judgment on the merits of the petition for a permanent injunction. See Silliman Private School Corp. v. Shareholder Group, 00-0065 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/16/01), 789 So.2d 20, 23, writ denied, 01-0594 (La.3/30/01), 788 So.2d 1194. But we also note that because the exceptions were not filed and heard prior to the trial of the preliminary injunction, the Commissioner is deemed to have waived the untimely exceptions. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2593; Kyle v. Johnson, 01-2482 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 979, 982; Ponder v. Relan Produce Farms, Inc., 439 So.2d 498, 501 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1983). For these additional reasons, we find no error in the district court's denial of the Commissioner's exceptions.

      . Piazza cites the following statutes for DHH's exclusive authority to regulate the sanitary inspection of food products that may affect public health and safety;
      Louisiana Revised Statute 40:5, which states in pertinent part: "The state health officer and the office of public health of the Department of Health and Hospitals shall have exclusive jurisdiction, control, and authority:

        (15) Over the sanitary inspection of meat, milk, and other products which may affect public health and safety.
      (17) Over the adoption of rules and regulations regarding public health, sanitary, and hygienic subjects." (Emphasis added.) Louisiana Revised Statute 40:604, which provides: "The authority to promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement of this Part is vested in the secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals.” (Emphasis added.)
      Louisiana Revised Statute 40:607 A, which states in pertinent part: “A food is considered adulterated ... (l)[i]f it contains any poisonous or deleterious substances, added or otherwise, which may render it dangerous to health.”


author: TERRI F. LOVE, Judge.

text:
    Jerry C. HILL v. Johnny B. ROSS, Jr.
    No. 2008-CA-1006.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Jan. 14, 2009.
    Writ Denied March 4, 2009.
    Order Withdrawing Rehearing April 17, 2009.
    Clarence Roby, Jr., Law Office of Clarence Roby, Jr., APLC, New Orleans, LA, for Jerry C. Hill.
    Johnny B. Ross, Jr., Baton Rouge, LA, In Proper Person.
    (Court composed of Judge DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR., Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge ROLAND L. BELSOME).
   TERRI F. LOVE, Judge.

11 This appeal arises from a dispute regarding child' custody. The proceedings were initiated in three parishes. The father of the minor child seeks to obtain custody from his mother in Orleans Parish. The trial court denied the father’s “Petition of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum” due to a pending ex parte interim custody hearing in West Baton Rouge Parish. We find that the transfer of the proceedings from West Baton Rouge Parish to Orleans Parish has rendered the appeal moot and dismiss.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jerry Hill (“Ms. Hill”) was granted the “sole care and custody” of Jane Doe, (“Jane”) the minor daughter of Johnny Ross, Jr. (“Mr. Ross”) on November 18, 1994, in West Baton Rouge Parish. On September 6, 2006, Ms. Hill voluntarily transferred custody of Jane to Mr. Ross in East Baton Rouge Parish. Upon a motion to vacate the voluntary transfer of custody order amidst allegations of physical abuse, West Baton Rouge Parish returned Jane to Ms. Hill on October 27, 2006. Thereafter, Mr. Ross filed a motion and order for a civil warrant in East Baton Rouge Parish, which transferred the matter back to West Baton Rouge Parish as the proper venue. In November of 2006, Ms. Hill filed an ex parte | .¿motion and order for return of child kept in violation of custody order, which was granted, in West Baton Rouge Parish.

However, on December 8, 2006, Mr. Ross filed a petition, in Orleans Parish, to make the orders from November 18, 1994 and September 6, 2006, executory. The trial court granted the petition. Further, Orleans Parish issued a civil warrant ordering Ms. Hill to return Jane to Mr. Ross. On April 4, 2007, Ms. Hill filed a motion to vacate the judgment ordering her to return Jane to Mr. Ross because she wanted a hearing to present evidence of abuse to the trial court. The trial court in Orleans Parish set aside its judgment and scheduled a hearing on the matter.

On April 15, 2008, Ms. Hill filed an “Emergency Motion to be Recognized as Interim Custodian” in West Baton Rouge Parish and the trial court continued the hearing until July 17, 2008. Mr. Ross then filed a “Petition of the Great Writ of Habe-as Corpus Ad Subjiciendum” in Orleans Parish, seeking custody of Jane. The trial court denied Mr. Ross’ petition because an ex parte interim custody hearing was scheduled for July, 17, 2008, in West Baton Rouge Parish. The trial judge in West Baton Rouge Parish then vacated its orders from November 18, 1994 and September 6, 2006. After the scheduled hearing in West Baton Rouge Parish on July 17, 2008, the trial court transferred the matter to Orleans Parish.

Mr. Ross’ timely appeal followed the denial of his petition in Orleans Parish.

APPEAL

Mr. Ross avers that Ms. Hill used fraud and deceit to retain custody of Jane and appeals the denial of a “Petition of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subji-ciendum.” Mr. Ross alleged that his due process rights were violated. The trial court’s denial of Mr. Ross’s petition was not erroneous as an ex parte interim custody hearing was scheduled in West Baton Rouge Parish. At the conclusion of lathe hearing, the trial court determined that the matter would be transferred to Orleans Parish. As such, we find the present appeal is deemed moot. See Cory v. Cory, 43,447 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/13/08), 989 So.2d 855; La. C.C.P. art. 2162.

DECREE

For the above mentioned reasons, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED

BELSOME, J., concurs in the Result.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to withdraw the application for rehearing filed by Johnny B. Ross, Jr. is granted.

/s/ Dennis R. Bagneris

JUDGE DENNIS R. BAGNERIS, SR.

/s/ Terri F. Love

JUDGE TERRI F. LOVE

/s/ Roland L. Belsome

JUDGE ROLAND L. BELSOME

      . The child's name is changed to protect her identity.