author: WICKER, J.

text:
    JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, State of Louisiana, d/b/a East Jefferson General Hospital v. HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF the PARISH OF ST. CHARLES d/b/a St. Charles Parish Hospital
    NO. 16-CA-702
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
    April 12, 2017

      COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, JEFFERSON PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, D/B/A EAST JEFFERSON GENERAL HOSPITAL, P. J. Stakelum, III, David R. Sherman, Glenn S. Newbauer
    COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/AP-PELLEE, HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 OF THE PARISH OF ST. CHARLES PARISH D/B/A ST. CHARLES PARISH HOSPITAL, Matthew K. Brown, Jack M. Stolier
    Panel composed of Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Mare E. Johnson, and Robert A. Chaisson
   WICKER, J.

| ,This appeal arises out of a judgment of the district court granting a declinatory exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction in favor of defendant, Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of St. Charles (the “SCPH District”), and dismissing without prejudice the declaratory action that plaintiff, Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2 (“EJGH”), filed against the SCPH District. Although the SCPH District initially objected to EJGH’s attempt to open the designated healthcare facility within the bounds of St. Charles Parish’s hospital service district, the SCPH District has since withdrawn its objection to this facility, and the record contains no evidence that EJGH is considering further expansion within the boundaries of the SCPH District. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and find that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because there is presently no justiciable controversy between the SCPH District and EJGH.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In order to understand the alleged dispute between the parties,, it is necessary to understand the legal framework under which both hospital districts operate.

In 1950, the state legislature passed La. R.S. 46:1051, which empowered the police juries of the parishes to create hospital service districts tasked with the duties and functions of owning and operating hospitals. Washington Parish Police Jury v. Washington Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist. No.1, 152 So.2d 362, 366 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1963), writ denied, 244 La. 669, 153 So.2d 883. Specifically, under this statute,

[t]he police juries of parishes are authorized and empowered, upon their own initiative, to form and create one or more hospital service districts within the respective parishes, or with agreement among police juries concerned, to combine two or more parishes into a single hospital service district with such names as the police juries may designate, and, in so doing, police juries may create hospital service districts whose boundaries overlap those of other hospital service districts.

laLa. R.S. 46:1051(A).

Pursuant to the authority granted by La. R.S. 46:1051, St. Charles Parish enacted Code of Ordinances, Chapter 11, Article I, Section 11-11, creating the SCPH District,

a hospital service district to be known as “Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of St. Charles, State of Louisiana,” and containing within its boundaries and corporate limits all of the territory within the boundaries and corporate limits of the parish as constituted On the adoption date of this Code.

Likewise, Jefferson Parish enacted Code of Ordinances, Chapter 17, Article II, Section 17-17, creating EJGH,

a hospital service district within the parish comprising and embracing all that territory within the following described boundaries:
All that portion of the Parish of Jefferson lying on the east side or the left descending bank of the Mississippi River, which portion comprises all of the wards numbered 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Parish of Jefferson and is bounded on the east by the Parish of Orleans, on the west by the Parish of St. Charles, on the north by Lake Pontchartrain and on the south by' the north bank of the Mississippi River.

In 1984, the Legislature enacted the Enhanced Ability to Compete Act, La. R.S. 46:1071-76. Recognizing that “hospital service districts are presently at a competitive disadvantage,” the Legislature expressly sought “to enhance the ability of a hospital service district to compete effectively and equally in the market for health care services.” La. R.S. 46:1071.

EJGH and the SCPH District disagree over the interplay between La. R.S. 46:1051 et seq. and the Enhanced Ability to Compete Act—that is, La. R.S. 46:1071-76. The SCPH District contends that La. R.S. 46:1051 prohibits a hospital service district, like; EJGH, from operating a healthcare facility outside- of its own geographic boundaries unless it obtains the consent of the hospital service district in which it seeks to operate. In contrast, EJGH argues that, through the Enhanced Ability to Compete Act, the Legislature “amended and supplanted” the | ..¡provisions of La. R.S. 46:1051, removing “those limitations that would prevent a hospital service district, such as EJGH, from establishing satellite clinics outside of its home service district.”

In 2015, EJGH opened East Jefferson Primary Care Boutte (the “Boutte Clinic”), a primary care medical practice centrally located in Boutte,1 Louisiana, which is on the West Bank of the Mississippi River, situated within the SCPH District. On August 25, 2015, the SCPH District notified EJGH that it objected to EJGH’s operation of the Boutte Clinic within the boundaries of the SCPH District and expressed its intention “to take action to stop the unauthorized operation of [the Boutte Clinic].” Thereafter, EJGH filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment affirming its position that the Enhanced-Ability to Compete Act, La. R.S, 46:1071-76, authorized EJGH to open, own, and/or operate a satellite location within the SCPH District. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No.-2, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of St. Charles, No. 80, 587, Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Charles (“EJGH /”). The SCPH District reconvened against EJGH, asserting its position that EJGH must obtain the consent of the SCPH District in order to open and operate healthcare facilities in St. Charles Parish.

According to EJGH’s petition in the instant matter, on December 22, 2015, the SCPH District transmitted a letter to EJGH, withdrawing its objection to EJGH’s operation of the Boutte Clinic and requesting that EJGH voluntarily dismiss its declaratory judgment action without prejudice. The following day, EJGH submitted a letter to the SCPH District, questioning whether the SCPH District “consented] to [EJGH] opening its own satellite facility in St. Charles Parish and concurred] in [EJGH’s] position that [the SCPH District’s] consent is not required for [EJGH] to open one or more satellite locations in St. Charles RParish.” The SCPH District did not respond to this inquiry but, instead, filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice its own reconven-tional demand and a declinatory exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, seeking dismissal without prejudice of EJGH’s declaratory judgment action. At the March 7, 2016 hearing on the SCPH District’s motion to dismiss and exception, the district court refused to consider EJGH’s proffer—contained in the instant record— in which EJGH expressly revealed its plan to open and to operate a new clinic centrally located on the East Bank of St. Charles Parish in Destrehan (the “Destre-han Clinic”). Finding that a justiciable controversy no longer existed between EJGH and the SCPH District because the SCPH District had withdrawn its objection to the Boutte Clinic, on March 10, 2016, the district court in EJGH I granted the SCPH District’s declinatory exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed EJGH’s declaratory judgment action and the SCPH District’s reconven-tional demand without prejudice. EJGH did not seek review of this judgment or of the district court’s refusal to consider its proffer concerning the Destrehan Clinic.

On March 30, 2016, the SCPH District transmitted a letter via e-mail to EJGH, voicing the SCPH District’s objection to EJGH’s plan to own and to operate the Destrehan Clinic and demanding that EJGH “immediately cease any further activity in St. Charles Parish related to [the Destrehan Clinic].” The next day, EJGH filed a second petition seeking a declaratory judgment that

despite the protestation of the SCPH District, EJGH is authorized and permitted by law to open, own and operate healthcare facilities in St. Charles Parish in order to provide healthcare services under the Enhanced Ability To Compete Act (LSA-R.S. 46:1071 et seq.) and that it need not solicit the consent of the SCPH District in order to do so....

EJGH also alleged that its “expanded offering of healthcare services is and will be accomplished through the establishment of satellite healthcare facilities on both the IsEast and the West Banks of St. Charles Parish.” To that end, EJGH explained, it had opened the Boutte Clinic on the West Bank of St. Charles Parish, and it intended to own and to operate a medical practice at the Destrehan Clinic on the East Bank of St. Charles Parish. Critically, beyond asserting its right to open facilities in St. Charles Parish without the SCPH District’s consent, EJGH did not indicate that it is considering or contemplating further expansion within St. Charles Parish.

On May 18, 2016, the SCPH District sent EJGH a letter withdrawing its objection “to the operation of the primary care clinic identified in the proffer which is located at 169 Longview Drive, Suite C, in Destrehan, Louisiana” and requesting that EJGH join it in submitting a joint motion to dismiss the declaratory action without prejudice. Several days later, on May 23, 2016, the SCPH District filed a declinatory exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that an actual controversy no longer exists between the SCPH District and EJGH because the SCPH District “has no objection to the Destrehan Clinic.” In opposition, EJGH argued that its petition for declaratory judgment was not solely confined to the conflict concerning its operation of the Destrehan Clinic. Rather, EJGH contended that, more broadly, “there still remains an issue as to whether EJGH’s operation of a healthcare facility in St. Charles Parish is subject to SCPH’s consent.”

At the hearing on the SCPH District’s exception, Robert Hinyub, Jr., vice-president of legal services and corporate compliance officer, testified on behalf of EJGH. When questioned directly whether there is “any other facility or operation of [EJGH] currently occurring in St. Charles Parish other than the Destrehan and Boutte clinics,” Mr. Hinyub at first refused to answer the question “because it would reveal strategic plans under the Enhanced Ability to Compete statute.” After the district court commented that the pleadings contain “no allegation that | (¡[EJGH is] interested in opening anything,” Mr. Hinyub affirmed that there is no other actual operation other than the Destrehan Clinic. At the conclusion of this hearing, the district court determined that there was no longer an existing actual controversy between the SCPH District and EJGH to which subject matter jurisdiction could attach:

In the declaratory judgment, the request for a declaratory judgment, East Jefferson General Hospital is asking this Court to essentially determine how this law is to be applied. And as much as I understand East Jefferson’s position wanting certainty in the manner in which it intends to proceed, the Court just fails to see a justiciable controversy which I can render anything other than an advisory opinion. And I think I’m outside the bounds of what I’m allowed to do in this job.
Therefore, I’m going to grant the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss the Petition for Declaratory Judgment without prejudice.
Gentlemen, I understand your dilemma. I understand your desire, your client’s desire, for certainty. I think I’m out of bounds if I rule, if I take any action on the petition as it’s styled and the facts that are alleged.

Thereafter, the district court signed a judgment granting the SCPH District’s exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissing EJGH’s declaratory judgment action without prejudice.

From this judgment, EJGH filed a timely devolutive appeal.

DISCUSSION

The central issue in this matter is whether there remains a justiciable controversy between EJGH and the SCPH District when there is no evidence in this record suggesting EJGH’s consideration of future expansion into the SCPH District such that there is a reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur.

In its first assignment of error, EJGH argues that “because one or more legal errors interdicted the fact finding process, the manifest error' standard is no longer 17applicable and the appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record.” Because an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction raises a question of law, we conduct de novo review. Ryan Gootee Gen. Contr., LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Sch. Bd. & One Constr., Inc., 15-325 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/19/15), 180 So.3d 588, 595. To the extent that EJGH challenges the factual findings of the district court, we apply manifest error review, as we do not find the district court erred as a matter of law. Cannizzaro v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co., 12-1455 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/10/13), 120 So.3d 853, 856.

EJGH raises two assignments of error concerning the district court’s judgment granting the SCPH District’s declinatory exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Assignment of Error Number 1

First, EJGH argues that the district court “erred in failing to find a real, justi-ciable controversy in the case at bar.” Essentially, EJGH argues that the district court framed the “controversy” at issue far too narrowly as a dispute simply over a “brick and mortar” location. On the contrary, EJGH contends that the dispute in this case involves whether or not it must obtain the SCPH District’s consent each time it plans to open a new healthcare facility in St. Charles Parish.

In Louisiana Associated Gen. Contrs. v. State ex rel. Div. of Admin., Office of State Purchasing, 95-2105 (La. 3/8/96), 669 So.2d 1185 (“LAGC’), the Louisiana Supreme Court, with Justice Catherine D. Kimball writing for the majority, addressed the principle of justiciable controversy in what remains the Court’s most thorough analysis of the issue. The merits of that case involved the constitutionality of the Louisiana Minority and Women’s Business Enterprise Act, La. R.S. 39:1951 et seq. Before reaching the merits, the Court addressed the |sthreshold question of whether the case, in its posture before the Court, presented a justiciable controversy or whether it was moot.

In 1994, the Louisiana Health Care Authority (the “State”) advertised for bids for the Perdido Clinic capital renovation project (the “Perdido Project”) which the State designated as a minority set-aside project in accordance with La. R.S. 39:1951 et seq., such that only minority business enterprise contractors could bid on the project. Plaintiff, Louisiana Associated General Contractors, Inc. (“LAGC”), filed a “Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief’ which sought, among other things, to have La. R.S. 39:1951 et seq. declared unconstitutional. The district court issued a temporary restraining order restraining the State from treating the Perdido Project as a minority set-aside project and from awarding any other public works contracts as set-aside projects under R.S. 39:1951. Thereafter, the State voluntarily withdrew the pending Perdido Project bid request and rebid the contract without the minority set-aside designation. After the parties stipulated that the State planned to set-aside future contracts under the Act, the State filed a “Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Mootness.” The district court denied the motion and determined, on the merits, that the Act was unconstitutional. The defendants filed a direct appeal with the Louisiana Supreme Court.

After determining that LAGC, as a state-wide trade association of construction contractors as opposed to an aggrieved individual contractor, had standing to pursue the declaratory judgment action, the Court examined the question of justici-ability. In its analysis, the Court turned first to the Louisiana declaratory judgment statutory construct, reviewing the purpose, scope and breadth of declaratory judgments in Louisiana:

Under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1872, “[a] person .. .whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute ... may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the ... statute ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.” The purpose of a declaratory judgment action |Bis to “settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity and respect to rights, status, and other legal relations.” La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1881.

669 So.2d at 1191. The Court emphasized that, while the declaratory judgment code articles are to be “liberally construed and administered,” an action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual interest which he asserts. Id. (citing La. C.C.P. arts 1881, 1876, and 681). Furthermore, “[a] person is entitled to relief by declaratory judgment when his rights are uncertain or disputed in an immediate and genuine situation and the declaratory judgment will remove the uncertainty or terminate the dispute.” Id. at 1191 (quoting In re P.V.W., 424 So.2d 1015, 1020-21 n.10 (La. 1982)). Turning next to the definition of “justiciable controversy,” the Court first pointed out that, while federal decisions on standing and justiciability are persuasive, justiciability under the Federal Constitution may be more restrictive than Louisiana’s jurisprudentially and statutorily based rule. Id. at 1192. While Article III of the United States Constitution limits the federal judicial power to only “cases and controversies,” the Louisiana Constitution contains no comparable limitation. Id. Instead, in Louisiana, the “requirement of a justiciable controversy and its concomitant prohibition of advisory opinions arises from jurisprudence and the various procedural laws which apply depending on the type of action brought.” Id. Focusing upon Louisiana’s jurisprudentially created justi-ciable controversy rule and exhortations against abstract judicial decisions, the Court defined “justiciable controversy” as an “existing actual and substantial dispute, as distinguished from one that is merely hypothetical or abstract [or moot], and a dispute which involves the legal relations of the parties who have real adverse interests ...Id. at 1193. In the context of a declaratory judgment action,

A “justiciable controversy” connotes, in the present sense, an existing actual and substantial dispute, as distinguished from one that is merely hypothetical or abstract, and a dispute which involves the legal I ^relations of the parties who have real adverse interests, and upon which the judgment of the court may effectively operate through a decree of a conclusive character. Further, the plaintiff should have a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake, and the dispute presented should be of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

Id. (quoting Abbott v. Parker, 259 La. 279, 249 So.2d 908, 918 (La. 1971)). As a matter of settled law, “courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies. In order to avoid deciding abstract, hypothetical or moot questions, courts require cases submitted for adjudication be justiciable, ripe for decision and not brought prematurely.” Id. (citing St. Charles Parish School Board v. GAF Corporation, 512 So.2d 1165, 1170-71 (La. 1987)).

With this foundation in mind, the Court addressed the State’s argument that its decision to remove the minority set-aside designation from the contract giving rise to the action rendered the matter moot. Focusing on the principle of “mootness,” the Court reasoned,

A “moot” question connotes an issue that has been deprived of practical significance and made abstract or purely academic. American Waste [& Pollution Control Co. v. St. Martin Parish Police Jury, 627 So.2d 158, 162 (La. 1993)]. A “moot” case is one. in which a judgment can serve no useful purpose and give no practical relief; Robin v. Concerned Citizens for Better Education in St. Bernard, Inc., 384 So.2d 405[, 406] (La. 1980); and when “there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur and when interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Khosravanipour v. Department of Transportation and Development, 644 So.2d 823, 826 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1994), writ denied, 94-2729 (La. 1/6/95), 648 So.2d 930.

669 So.2d at 1193. The Court concluded that, although the State struck the set-aside designation from the Perdido Project bid request, a justiciable controversy existed. “[A] defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a ... court of its power to determine the legality of the practice.’’ Id. at 1194 (quoting City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, 456 U.S. 283, 289, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 1074, 71 L.Ed.2d 152, 159 (1982). If a defendant voluntarily stops allegedly illegal conduct, that change does not make the case moot, for the defendant would then be free to return to his old ways. 669 So.2d at 1194. Defendant,, in such a case, must show that “there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated” and “interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Id. at 1194-95. When both conditions are satisfied, it may be said that the case is moot despite the fact the defendant voluntarily stopped his illegal conduct, because neither party has a legally cognizable interest in the final determination of the underlying questions of fact and law. Id. at 1195. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the State’s decision. to remove the set-aside designation from the Perdido Project contract did not render the case moot because a determination of the constitutionality of the Act would terminate the controversy, the two sides were in adverse positions, and both sides had a significant interest in achieving a successful resolution of the case. Although the State had removed the designation with respect to the particular contract from which the matter originally arose, the Court determined that it was not the contractors’ inability to bid on any particular public works contract that was at issue. Rather, the controversy involved the operation of the statute itself which established a barrier prohibiting members of a particular class from bidding equally on public contracts. In reaching this conclusion, .two factors were most significant to the Court. First, the State had unequivocally expressed its intention to designate other contracts as minority set-aside -projects. Thus, the case was not based upon a hypothetical or theoretical contingency. Second, the Act was mandatory as to all State agencies with the State subject to a mandamus action should it fail to designate minority set-aside contracts pursuant to the Act. Where the law in question mandates a challenged action to occur, plaintiffs case was not moot since a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights 112was “in no way hypothetical or speculative.” LAGC, 669 So.2d at 1194 (quoting Blanchette v. Connecticut General Ins. Corps., 419 U.S. 102, 143, 95 S.Ct. 335, 358, 42 L.Ed.2d 320, 353 (1974). ‘Where the inevitability of the operation of a statute against certain individuals is patent, it is irrelevant to the existence of a justiciable controversy that there will be a time delay before the disputed provisions will come into effect.” Id.

We find this seminal case to be highly instructive, albeit distinguishable, from the present matter.. While LAGC involved the constitutionality of a .statute under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, here the disagreement was over competing interpretations of a statutory scheme. Next, the Act at issue in LAGC was mandatory, which supported the conclusion that the prospect that the alleged violation of constitutional rights would recur was neither hypothetical nor speculative. Finally, the record in LAGC contained the State’s stipulation that it would continue to apply the minority set-aside provisions of La. R.S. 39:1951 et seq. Therefore, it. was abundantly clear .that there would be more future state construction contracts containing the challenged provision. . ■ .

In the present ease, there is no constitutional question. Next, unlike the Act at issue in LAGC, La. R.S. 46:1051 does not mandate that St. Charles Parish require EJGH to obtain its permission for EJGH to expand further into St. Charles Parish. While the State in LAGC would have been subject to a mandamus action if it failed to implement and to enforce the challenged Act, the SCPH District could choose not to assert its perceived right to require permission without any such repercussions. Finally, unlike the record in LAGC which contained the State’s clear stipulation that it intended to issue other contracts containing the challenged minority set-aside provision, the record before us does not raise a reasonable expectation that this dispute between EJGH and the SCPH District will recur. We 11Hdo not find it to be outcome determinative that there is currently no EJGH facility in the SCPH District to which the District objects. However, we find no justiciable controversy in this case where there is not one scintilla of evidence in the record to suggest that EJGH is contemplating further expansion within the SCPH District such that we can reasonably- expect this issue might recur.

While this is the second declaratory judgment action between these parties raising the same issue of statutory construction—both filed by EJGH after the SCPH District expressed its objection to an EJGH clinic to which the District subsequently consented in the wake of litigation—this sequence of events alone does not signal a further recurring issue. In opening its two clinics in the SCPH District, EJGH explained it meant for these measures to address the large number of St. Charles Parish residents who choose to obtain their health care services at EJGH or who, as EJGH employees participating in the hospital’s self-insured group health plan, are generally required to obtain covered health services at EJGH. Like many other parishes up and down the Mississippi River, St. Charles Parish is situated on both the East and the West Banks of the river. The general “river related culture” manifests itself in residents’ widely held preference for remaining on their respective river banks, with East Bank residents seeking services from East Bank providers while West Bank residents seek services from West Bank providers. The Boutte Clinic is centrally located roughly in the middle of St. Charles Parish’s West Bank and in the most populous area of the St. Charles Parish West Bank. Likewise, the Destrehan Clinic is geographically located in the center of St. Charles parish’s East Bank and in the most populous area of the St. Charles Parish East Bank. With the opening of these two centrally located clinics, EJGH appears to have met its stated goals. Any future potential skirmishes between EJGH and the SCPH District about further EJGH expansion into St. Charles Parish are entirely theoretical at this point. Where we can discern no | uevidence in the record that further litigation may ensue between the parties on this issue, we find no justiciable controversy to which our jurisdiction can attach.

We do not, however, suggest that EJGH must disclose its strategic plans, which are protected from disclosure by the Enhanced Ability to Compete Act, La. R.S. 46:1073, in order to create a justiciable controversy. Clearly, the law does not require EJGH to violate rights established under its provisions in order for subject matter jurisdiction to exist. See MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 134, 127 S.Ct. 764, 775, 166 L.Ed.2d 604, 619 (2007) (“The rule that a plaintiff must destroy a large building, bet the farm, or (as here) risk treble damages and the loss of 80 percent of its business before seeking a declaration of its actively contested legal rights finds no support in Article III.”). The question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. MedImmune Inc., 549 U.S. at 127, 127 S.Ct. 764. There is no formula for showing the existence of an actual controversy. In this specific case, the two facilities EJGH presently operates seem to have met its current goals, and there is no indication in the record, however vague, regarding EJGH’s future interest in expanding into St. Charles Parish. Considering very carefully the facts and circumstances of this case in its current posture, we cannot discern an existing actual and substantial dispute, as distinguished from one that is merely hypothetical or abstract, such that subject matter jurisdiction attaches.

EJGH argues that, even though there is no longer any dispute related to its two existing facilities, the court’s jurisdiction is not necessarily defeated because it is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” In support, EJGH points to Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 568, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2820, 65 L.Ed.2d 973, 981 (1980). In Richmond Newspapers, the United States Supreme |iaCourt recognized that “its jurisdiction is not necessarily defeated by the practical termination of a contest which is short-lived by nature.” Id. If the underlying dispute is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” it is not moot. Id. To meet that test, two conditions must be satisfied: “(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 377, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 2904, 61 L.Ed.2d 608, 620 (1979). We find this exception is inapplicable in this matter because the statutory disagreement between EJGH and the SCPH District is not “short-lived by nature.” Unlike the dispute in Richmond Newspapers involving press access to a criminal trial, see 448 U.S. at 563, 100 S.Ct. 2814, the resolution of this disagreement is not a matter of circumstance but of choice. Moreover, as previously discussed, we can discern no evidence that EJGH is considering further expansion in St. Charles Parish such that it may be subjected to the same action again.

We find that EJGH’s first assignment of error is meritless.

Assignment of Error Number 2

Second, EJGH alleges that the district court erred in concluding that the SCPH District’s “limited consent” to the new facility in Destrehan rendered moot the dispute between EJGH and the SCPH District. We disagree. While the SCPH District’s May 18, 2016 letter specifically identifies the Destrehan Clinic by means of the proposed facility’s address, neither this letter nor EJGH’s proffer which the SCPH District references in this letter limits the consent to “a specific type of healthcare facility operated by a specific entity at a specific physical address.” Rather, the SCPH District advises, without limitation, that “the District does not object to the operation of the primary care clinic identified in the proffer which is 116located at 159 Longview Drive, Suite C, in Destrehan, Louisiana.” More importantly, however, EJGH does not allege or suggest at any point that it is contemplating changing the location of the facility, the type of services provided, or the specific entity operating the facility. Accordingly, we find this assignment of error to be meritless.

While we sympathize with EJGH as it attempts to obtain some clarity concerning its rights under the Enhanced Ability to Compete Act, we are constrained by the record. EJGH vigorously highlights the many disadvantages from which Louisiana public hospital service districts suffer as a result of changes in the medical delivery industry. As it relates to this matter, EJGH argues that it operates at a competitive disadvantage against myriad national and regional private hospital service corporations, such as Ochsner, which operate without constraint across parish and state lines. While private hospitals with no boundaries can extend their networks by taking advantage of the public infrastructure already in place in more rural areas, larger public hospital service districts are threatened with the prospect of having to obtain the consent of their competitors in order to expand their operations. In this case, the St. Charles Parish Hospital, owned by the SOPH District, contracted with. Ochsner to run its public hospital. EJGH alleges that Ochsner, its biggest competitor, now seeks . to use La. R.S. 46:1051 either to force EJGH to reveal its strategic plan or to block EJGH from effectively competing with it. The merits of this matter are not before us, and these arguments are best addressed to the Louisiana Legislature.

[^CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, granting the SCPH District’s declinatory exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and' dismissing EJGH’s declaratory judgment action without prejudice.

AFFIRMED

      . We are aware that Ochsner has entered into similar contracts with other public hospital districts. See Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 2 v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 1, 91-1792 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/29/98), 716 So.2d 168, 169.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, JUDGE

license: Public Domain

text:
    Dodie PLAISANCE, Amelia Noel, Yvette Gautreaux, Gloria Willis, Patti Waddell, Julie Flatmann, Cherie Varisco and Simone Duhon, Randi Hindman, Diane Nowik, Jackie Danilidis and Billie Gassen v. JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
    NO. 16-CA-747
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
    April 12, 2017

      COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/AP-PELLEE, JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Eve B. Masinter, Joseph R. Hugg, E. Fredrick Preis, Jr.
    Panel composed of Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois
   FREDERICKA HOMBERG WICKER, JUDGE

|, In'this action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages, plaintiffs, former Jefferson Parish public school principals, seek to devolutively appeal the trial court’s June 13, 2016 judgment and July 25,2016 amended judgment, .wherein the trial court ruled upon a series of nine “Stipulated Legal Issues.”

For the following reasons, we find this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction as these judgments are not final, appealable judgments. Therefore, we grant appellee Jefferson Parish School Board’s motion to dismiss this appeal, although on grounds different from .those asserted in appellee’s motion, dismiss this appeal without prejudice, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2012, plaintiffs, twelve former principals, filed suit against defendant, the Jefferson Parish School Board, alleging breach of their employment contracts and failure to give proper notice of its intention not to renew plaintiffs’ contracts in violation of La. R.S. 17:444(B)(4)(c)(i). Plaintiffs sought reinstatement, or alternatively front pay for five years, a declaration that the School Board policy at issue violates the law, and injunctive relief. On December 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended petition adding an additional plaintiff, alleging that the School Board demoted or terminated plaintiffs without a pre-deprivation hearing as required by Louisiana law.

On May 7, 2015, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Set a Status Conference,” in which they represented to the district court that they had “conferred a number of times over the last year and have agreed upon certain legal issues” they wished to present to the Court for briefing and decision. The parties | ^expressed in this joint motion their belief “that the determination of these legal issues will narrow the ultimate issues in the case for depositions and any further written or other discovery and trial, and will streamline the presentation of the case.”

It appears that the district court conducted a status ' conference on May 28, 2015, during which it set deadlines for the submission of stipulations and briefing in accordance with the intentions expressed in the parties’ May 7, 2015 joint motion.

On January 15, 2016, the parties jointly filed a “Stipulation of Facts,” which they expressly submitted “for the Court’s consideration when deciding the Stipulated Legal Issues that the parties agreed to and submitted to the Court.” The parties filed their “Stipulated Legal Issues” on February 2, 2016. This document contained nine discrete issues which the parties moved the court to consider and to decide. Nothing in this joint motion suggests that the parties requested or contemplated that the court would resolve the merits of plaintiffs’ claims or decide issues other than the nine “Stipulated Legal Issues” presented. -

On January 15, 2016, plaintiffs’ filed its brief addressing each of the “Stipulated Legal Issues.” According to plaintiffs, the parties were engaged in a “collaborative effort to narrow the issues for trial,” which motivated the agreement between the parties to identify and to brief the nine stipulated issues for resolution prior to trial.

On the same day, the School Board filed its brief addressing each of the issues to which the parties stipulated. In the introduction of its brief, the School Board expressed its understanding that “[b]y resolving the nine (9) legal issues ^addressed in this Brief, [the district court] will decide the vast majority of the disputes between the Parties in this lawsuit, and [sic] will assist the Parties to resolve the litigation in an expeditious fashion.” Prior to submission of the School Board’s brief, there was no indication that the parties contemplated that resolution of these “Stipulated Legal Issues” would involve resolution of any issues to which the parties did not stipulate or any decisions on the merits. Nevertheless, at various points in its brief, the School Board seemed to advocate that the district court make additional factual findings. Ultimately, the School Board concluded its brief with a prayer for the district court to “rule in its favor on the stipulated legal issues addressed above and dismiss with prejudice all of the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Board.”

On February 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed their reply brief, responding to the arguments set forth in the School Board’s brief but attaching additional evidence to which the School Board did not stipulate concerning the School Board’s treatment of other similarly situated principals. Plaintiffs presented this evidence for the district court to consider on the question of whether or not the School Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously with respect to the plaintiffs.

The School Board filed its reply brief on February 5, 2016, again arguing at times that the district court should reach the merits of certain claims rather than resolving the discrete issues the parties presented.

On March 9, 2016, and April 12, 2016, the district court conducted two hearings concerning the parties’ “Stipulated Legal Issues.” At various points during these hearings, defendant made merits arguments to the court, at one point eliciting the following admonition from plaintiffs’ counsel: “Man, I was under the impression that before—we came before the Court to discuss purely legal issues Land not factual issues. And I think thé Defendants have now thrown a lot of facts into the mix, which they say that should result in a decision in their favor.” In presenting arguments with respect to some of the “Stipulated Legal Issues,” plaintiffs acknowledged that resolution of some issues required the district court to make factual determinations that were not appropriate at this juncture: “But in the Oakbourne case where the Court discusses constructive discharge, again, as I said, Your Hon- or, it’s a fact-based determination. I think the Court has to hear testimony of individuals to determine whether or not there was humiliation or there’s a loss of status, Your Honor.” At the conclusion of these hearings, the district court took the matter under advisement.

On June 13, 2016, the district court signed a written judgment, directly addressing each of the parties’ “Stipulated Legal Issues,” as the parties requested. With the consent of both parties, the district court signed an amended judgment on July 25, 2016; which substantively altered a portion of the June 13, 2016 judgment, applying the court’s legal reasoning to four additional plaintiffs based on the facts to which the parties’ stipulated.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for devolutive appeal from the amended judgment on September 21, 2016.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs’ appeal was not timely filed and that plaintiffs do not have a right to appeal the amended judg-merit because they consented to the amendment of the judgment. We dismiss this appeal without prejudice on other grounds.

| ¡¿Before considering the merits in any appeal, appellate courts have the duty to determine sua sponte whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even when the parties do not raise the issue. Input/Output Marine Sys. v. Wilson Greatbatch Techs., Inc., 10-477 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 910. This Court cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our appellate court jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment.” Id. at 915.

La. C.C.P. art. 1915 provides, in pertinent part:

A. A final judgment may be rendered and signed by the court, even though it may not grant the successful party or parties all of the relief prayed for, or may not adjudicate all of the issues in the case, when the court:
(1) Dismisses the suit as to less than all of the parties, defendants, third party plaintiffs, third party defendants, or in-tervenors.
(2) Grants a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as provided by Articles 965, 968, and 969.
(3) Grants a motion for summary judgment, as provided by Articles 966 through 969, but not including a summary judgment granted pursuant to Article 966(E).
(4) Signs a judgment on either the principal or incidental demand, when the two have been tried separately, as provided by Article 1038.
(5) Signs a judgment on the issue of liability when that issue has been tried separately by the court, or when, in a jury trial, the issue of liability has been tried before a jury and the issue of damages is to be tried before a different jury.
(6)Imposes sanctions or disciplinary action pursuant to Article 191, 863, or 864 or Code of Evidence Article 510(G).
B.
(1) When a court renders a partial judgment or partial summary judgment or sustains an exception in part, as to one or more but less than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories against a party, whether in an original demand, reconventional demand, cross-claim, third-party claim, or intervention, the judgment shall not constitute a final judgment unless it is designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.
|fi(2) In the absence of such a determination and designation, any such order or decision shall not constitute a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal and may be'revised at any time prior to rendition of the judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, we can only conclude that the merits of plaintiffs’ claims were not before the district court at the time it issued the judgments in this case and the judgments the district court rendered did not resolve all of the claims as to any one or more plaintiffs.

The parties consented to what effectively was a bifurcated trial of certain discrete issues. At no time during the pendency of these proceedings did the parties agree to expand the number of issues presented to the trial court for resolution beyond the nine issues presented in the parties’ “Stipulated Legal Issues.” Thus, we find the merits of plaintiffs’ claims were not before the court.

Moreover, in issuing its rulings in this case, the court properly confined itself to the designated issues before it. Plaintiffs’ petition seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages. Moreover, plaintiffs alleged both breach of contract and a violation of due process rights. After closely examining the holdings in each judgment, we find that the district court did not resolve all claims on the merits with respect to any one or more plaintiffs such that either judgment would qualify as a final judgment under La. C.C.P. arts. 1841 and 1915(A). Moreover, neither judgment is designated as a partial final judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B).

The judgments also do not contain de-cretal language as required by La. C.C.P. art. 1915 and Louisiana jurisprudence. Claiborne Medical Corp. v. Siddiqui, 12-759 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/13), 113 So.3d 1109, 1112. As this Court has held,

A valid judgment must be precise, definite and certain. Blanke v. Duffy, 05-829, p. 2 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/28/06), 927 So.2d 540, 541 (citation omitted). See also: Scott v. State, 525 So.2d 689 (La. App, 1 Cir.1988), writ denied, 558 So.2d 1128 (La. 1990) (citations omitted); Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 05-0337, pp. 2-3 (LaApp. 1 Cir. 3/24/06), 934 So.2d 66, 67 (citations omitted). The decree alone indicates the decision. Falterman v. Prestenbach, 6 La. App. 563, 1927 WL 3549, *1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1927). The result'decreed must be spelled out in lucid, unmistakable language. South St. Lumber Co. v. Dickerson, 235 La. 1062, 106 So.2d 513, 515 (La. 1958). The quality of definiteness is essential to a proper judgment. Russo v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 129 La. 554, 56 So. 506, 508 (La. 1911).
A final appealable judgment must contain decretal language, and it must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied. Johnson, supra, 0337 at 3, 934 So.2d at 67. Accord: Blanke, supra. The specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment without reference to, an extrinsic source such as pleadings or reasons for judgment. Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 01-0809, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 906, 913.

Input/Output Marine Sys., 52 So.3d at 915-16.

Because a final appealable judgment is not before us, we find that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction in this matter, and we dismiss this appeal without prejudice. La. C.C.P. art. 2162. . . • •

DECREE

Accordingly,’we grant defendant’s motion to dismiss, dismiss this appeal -without prejudice, deny as moot plaintiffs’ motion to file a sur-reply to defendant’s motion to dismiss, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED

      . Plaintiff’s motion for appeal references only the July 23, 2016 amended judgment which does not incorporate the June 13, 2016 judgment. From the , record, it is apparent that plaintiffs intended to appeal both the holdings contained in the June 13, 2016 judgment and the amendments contained in the July 23, 2016 judgment. Because we are dismissing this appeal, it is of no moment whether or not the holdings in the June 13, 2016 judgment were properly before us.

      . With the consent of all the parties, the district court may bifurcate issues for trial "[i]f it would simplify the proceedings or would permit a more orderly disposition of the case or otherwise would be in the interest of justice...-." La. C.C.P. art. 1562. Although the record does not reflect that the parties ever filed a joint motion to bifurcate the issues, it is clear from the record that all of the parties consented to bifurcation of certain issues and intended for the district court to render a decision with respect to these issues prior to trial of the rest of the case.

      . According to the parties’ "Stipulated Legal Issues,” the parties had previously agreed to and submitted these "stipulated legal issues” to the district court via facsimile on June 12, 2015.

      . Plaintiffs apparently sought to use this evidence to argue broadly that the School Board’s decision to remove all of the plaintiffs was arbitrary and capricious. However, only "Issue 5” of the "Stipulated Legal Issues” involves the arbitrary and capricious question, and this issue solely addresses the three plaintiffs removed when the schools to which they were assigned closed.

      . As a general rule, when an error of substance has crept into a final judgment, that error may be corrected by way of a timely motion for new trial or by appeal. LaBove v. Theriot, 91-2524 (La. 4/20/92), 597 So.2d 1007, 1010. The Louisiana Supreme Court has jurisprudentially recognized that substantive amendment is also permitted by consent of the parties. Id.; Villaume v. Villaume, 363 So.2d 448, 450-51 (La. 1978).

      . While the parties designated the stipulated issues as "legal issues,” we need not address whether some or all of the issues presented to the court for decision were mixed issues of law and fact or factual issues.

      . The record reflects that the School Board also did not believe that the judgment disposed of all of the claims of any plaintiff such that it could qualify as a final judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A). Indeed, at an October 18, 2016 hearing, the School Board acknowledged that the judgments clearly did not resolve plaintiffs’ due process claims, Defendant moved to compel ten of the plaintiffs to accept a tender to resolve these claims and requested that the district court issue “an order ... spelling out that these 10 plaintiffs are dismissed from this action as soon as the checks are deposited in the registry of the court."


author: CHAISSON, J.

text:
    STATE of Louisiana v. Damion SAVAGE
    NO. 16-KA-511
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
    April 12, 2017

      COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPEL-LEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, Terry M. Boudreaux, Juliet L. Clark, Paul D. Con-nick, Jr.
    COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, DAMION SAVAGE, Damien Savage, Bertha M. Hillman
    Panel composed of Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Robert A. Chaisson
   CHAISSON, J.

| defendant, Damion Savage, appeals his convictions and sentences for six counts of armed robbery with a firearm. We have reviewed the arguments presented in ap-. pellate counsel’s brief and defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 18, 2011, the Jefferson Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging defendant with six counts of armed robbery, in violation of La. R.S. 14:64. Defendant pled not guilty, and. the case proceeded to trial before a twelve-person jury on February 16-19, 2016. After considering the evidence presented, the jury found defendant guilty as charged on all six counts. On February 25, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant on each count to fifty-five years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Further, pursuant to La, R.S. 14:64.3, the trial court sentenced defendant on each count to an additional five years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The trial court ordered that the five-year enhancement on each count be served consecutively to the fifty-five-year sentence on each count and further ordered that the six sentences be served concurrently with each other. Defendant now appeals.

FACTS

This case stems from a series of six armed robberies that occurred at Jefferson Parish businesses over the course of approximately two months. The details of each are as follows:

|¾January 23, 2011—Armed Robbery of Heather Carmadelle at Subway on Bara-taría Boulevard (Count Six)

On January 23, 2011, sometime between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., Jayeshkumar Patel, manager at the Subway restaurant on Bar-ataría Boulevard in Marrero, and Heather Carmadelle, an employee, were getting ready to close for the day. Mr, Patel was in the restroom, and Ms. Carmadelle was washing dishes in the back of the store when two men, one of whom had a gun, came into the restaurant. The armed perpetrator told Ms. Carmadelle to unlock the safe. When Ms, Carmadelle replied that she did not have a key to the safe, they ordered her to open the register and lie down on the floor. The two men took the money from the cash register and left. Ms. Carmadelle testified that she was unable to see the faces of the men because they were covered, but that the robbery was recorded by a surveillance camera.

March 6,2011—Armed Robbery of Ashley Arthur and Jayeshkumar Patel at Subway on Barataría Boulevard (Counts One and Two)

•On March 6, 2011, the Subway on Bara-taría Boulevard was robbed for a second time while Mr. Patel and another employee, Ashley Arthur, were working. On that occasion, two black men, armed with guns, entered the business. According to Mr. Patel, one of the robbers demanded that he open the register or he would kill him. The men then took Ms. Arthur’s purse as well as money from Mr. Patel’s pocket and the cash register. During the course of their investigation, the,officers discovered a Newport brand cigarette butt outside of the restaurant. Subsequent DNA analysis revealed that the cigarette butt was consistent with the DNA profile obtained from the reference sample of co-defendant Isaac.

I ^Surveillance footage of the robbery was obtained. After viewing the surveillance videos from the two Subway incidents, Detective Wayne Rumore of the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office believed the two robberies were committed by the same suspects, based on the similarities between the two incidents. Detective Rumore explained, ‘‘two men entered the business fully masked, fully covered, both armed with semi automatic pistols, and there was basically a takeover robbery where they took over the entire business.”

March 13, 2011—Armed robbery of Adrian Labeaud and Dana Rhea at. Subway on Jefferson Highway (Counts Three and Four)

On March 13, 2011, Dana Rhea and Adrian Labeaud were working at a Subway on Jefferson Highway when two armed men entered the restaurant from the back door. One of the perpetrators ordered Ms. Rhea to crawl on the floor to the cash register where she then opened the register and gave the man the cash. While Ms. Rhea was at the cash register, the second assailant put a gun to Mr. Labeaud’s side and instructed him to keep his face down towards the ground. After learning, the whereabouts of the safe from Mr. La-beaud, the men also removed money from the safe before instructing Ms. Rhea and Mr. Labeaud to crawl to the back of the store and wait there.

Deputy Richard Uyeda of the Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office responded to the armed robbery at the Subway on Jefferson Highway, spoke to the victims, and obtained descriptions of the perpetrators. Additionally, as in the March 6, 2011 robbery, a Newport brand cigarette butt was discovered outside of the restaurant. Subsequent DNA analysis revealed that the cigarette butt was consistent with the DNA profile obtained from the reference sample of co-defendant Isaac. The police also obtained surveillance footage of the robbery, which depicted similarities to the March 6, 2011 robbery.

| March 24, 2011—Armed Robbery of Nicholas Ramsak at GameStop on Belle Promenade (Count Five)

On the evening of March 24, 2011, Nicholas Ramsak was working at the GameS-top in Marrero when he was robbed at gunpoint. Mr. Ramsak testified that two men, one of whom was armed with a gun, entered the store, demanded the money from both cash registers, took the cash, ordered him to his knees, and then fled. Mr. Ramsak was unable to see the assailants’ faces because they were covered, but he did provide a clothing description of one of the men. Fingerprints taken from a video gaming accessory cabinet located behind the counter and inaccessible to the public matched co-defendant Isaac’s fingerprints.

Detective Rumore thereafter obtained an arrest warrant for Isaac and a search warrant for his residence. Isaac was arrested and a pack of Newport brand cigarettes was recovered at the location of his arrest. Additionally, a search of Isaac’s residence revealed clothing that matched the description of the clothing worn by one of the suspects from several of the robberies.

Isaac’s cellular phone was also seized, and information obtained from Isaac’s phone records indicated that a phone number registered to defendant’s wife, Monique Savage, was contacted frequently around the times of the robberies. Moreover, cell phone tower information obtained from Isaac’s and Savage’s cell phone records placed both phones near the location of the robberies at the times they occurred. Detective Rumore obtained an arrest warrant for defendant and a search warrant for his residence. The officers thereafter went to defendant’s residence and executed both warrants. Various articles of clothing, including a Polo cap, a Polo jacket, a White Sox cap, white Nike tennis shoes, and t-shirts similar to those worn by the perpetrators in the surveillance videos, were among items seized as a result of the search of defendant’s residence and car.

[ ^Following defendant’s arrest pursuant to the warrant, he was transported to the investigations bureau to be interviewed. After being advised of his rights, defendant gave a series of three statements, in which he admitted to committing the armed robberies after being confronted with the clothing seized and the surveillance videos from the robberies.

Defendant testified at trial and denied his involvement in the robberies. He testified that when he was taken in for questioning he denied any involvement in the robberies. However, during the course of his interrogation, Lieutenant Russo became aggressive and threatened to contact defendant’s wife’s employer to inform him of a pending drug charge. According to defendant, things began to “escalate” between him and Lieutenant Russo, and at some point, Lieutenant Russo grabbed his clothing to “rough [him] around a little bit.” Defendant maintained that his statements are not true, that he was threatened into giving them, and that the only reason he admitted to the robberies was to protect his family. At trial, defendant also testified that during his interview at the investigations bureau, he began to experience heroin withdrawals.

DENIAL OF JUROR CHALLENGE

(Assignment of Error Number One)

In his counseled assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause as to prospective juror Marshall Breedlove. Specifically, defendant contends that Mr. Breedlove’s answers as a whole during voir dire established that he could not be a fair and impartial juror because Mr. Breed-love’s brother-in-law had been beaten and robbed at gunpoint, and this incident was “fresh on his mind.” Based on this error, defendant concludes that he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury, and thus, his case should be remanded for a new trial.

UThe Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury. Further, Article I, § 17 of the Louisiana Constitution guarantees the right to full voir dire examination of prospective jurors and the right to challenge those jurors peremptorily. State v. Munson, 12-327 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/10/13), 115 So.3d 6, 12, writ denied, 13-1083 (La. 11/22/13), 126 So.3d 476. La. C.Cr.P. art. 797(2) allows the defendant or the State to challenge a juror for cause on the ground that he “is not impartial, whatever the cause of his. partiality.”

A prospective juror’s seemingly prejudicial response is not grounds for an automatic challenge for cause, and a district judge’s refusal to excuse him on the ground that he is not impartial is not an abuse of discretion, if after further questioning the potential juror demonstrates a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and evidence. A challenge for cause should be granted, however, even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror’s responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or inability to render a judgment according to law may be reasonably implied. State v. Kang, 02-2812 (La. 10/21/03), 859 So.2d 649, 653.

In ruling on a challenge for cause, the trial judge is vested with broad discretion; his ruling will be reversed only when a review of the entire voir dire reveals that the judge’s exercise of discretion was arbitrary and unreasonable with resultant prejudice to the accused. This is necessarily so because the trial court has the benefit of seeing the facial expressions and hearing the vocal intonations of the members of the jury venire as they respond to questioning by the parties’ attorneys. Such expressions and intonations are not readily apparent at the appellate level where a review is based on a cold record. State v. Munson, 115 So.3d at 12.

To prove an error warranting reversal of both the conviction and sentence, a defendant must show that he has exhausted all of his peremptory challenges and |7that the trial court erroneously denied a challenge for cause. In Louisiana, a defendant must also use one of his peremptory challenges curatively to remove the juror or waive any complaint on appeal. State v. Magee, 13-1018 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/24/14), 150 So.3d 446, 453, writ denied, 14-2209 (La. 10/2/15), 178 So.3d 581. In the instant case, the record reflects that defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges and that he used a peremptory challenge to remove Mr. Breedlove. Thus, the issue which remains is whether the trial court erroneously denied defendant’s challenge for cause of Mr. Breedlove.

During voir dire, Mr. Breedlove stated that he is married to a hair dresser and is a police recruiter with the New Orleans Police Department. When asked by the trial judge if he could be fair and impartial despite his work for the police department, Mr. Breedlove replied affirmatively. He further acknowledged that he could listen to the evidence presented, could render a verdict solely on the evidence in this case, and would not hold it against defendant if he chose not to testify.

Pursuant to further voir dire questioning, Mr. Breedlove revealed that a friend’s son was in prison for life and that a family member had been a victim of a crime. Mr. Breedlove advised the prosecutor that his brother-in-law had been “mugged and beaten” outside of his house, then taken back inside of his house where he and his wife were robbed at gunpoint. Noting that Mr. Breedlove was a police recruiter, that he knew someone in jail, and that a family member had been a victim of a crime, the State asked Mr. Breedlove whether he would be more partial to the police because of his experiences. Mr. Breedlove responded, “I would , think not. I would be as fair as I could. The NOPD, is integrity, fairness, and service. |sSo that’s what I hope I will be.” Defense counsel then followed-up on this line of questioning, asking all of the prospective jurors whether they had any personal experiences as a crime victim that when, listening to the testimony in this case, would “bring them back” to that moment. The following colloquy ensued:

MR. BREEDLOVE: Yes, sir. Again, going back to my brother-in-law, that was just last year it’s fresh on my mind. There is some resentment when it comes to armed robbery. But again, being a police recruiter I would want to be as fair as I could.
DEFENSE: And we all want to be as fair as we could, we all want to be good people and do nice things and live this ideal life, but sometimes that’s just not our reality, and it doesn’t mean that anything’s wrong with us, but we’re humans. That’s just how we’re wired. That’s what separates us from animals right. We have feelings, we can sympathize, we can empathize, we can do all of those things, and we just can’t at the drop of a dime shut those things off. Would you agree with that Mr. Breedlove?
MR. BREEDLOVE: Yes.
DEFENSE: ... And that’s very fresh from what you’re saying in a year ... and when [the] State kind of begin [sic] asking you all those things it kind of came back to you also with your brother.
MR. BREEDLOVE: Yes.
DEFENSE:' So my question to you and you correct me if I’m wrong, but from what it sounds like this may not be the case for you. Would you agree with that?
MR. BREEDLOVE: I would agree. It may not be.
DEFENSE: Because again, if you were sitting where Mr. Savage was sitting and there was a juror sitting where you were, sitting and you had this dialogue would you want you on the jury?
MR. BREEDLOVE: Probably not.
DEFENSE: And of course, the Judge will instruct you on the law and tell you to be fair and to disregard this and | ^disregard certain things, and put your feelings aside, but again, sometimes you just can’t do that. And from what you’re saying Mr. Breed-love it sounds like that’s something you probably won’t be able to do if it came around to it, correct?
MR. BREEDLOVE: I would try.
DEFENSE: But again, this wouldn’t be the right case for you based on your feelings and your experience with your brother, correct?
MR. BREEDLOVE: Probably not.
Defense counsel challenged Mr. Breed-love for cause claiming that he “echoed resentment related to a- previous armed robbery.” A bench conference with Mr. Breedlove was called at which time- the trial judge asked Mr. Breedlove whether he could separate himself from his prior experience concerning his1 brother-in-law and judge the case solely on the evidence so as to render a fair and impartial verdict after applying the law as instructed. In response, the following exchange Occurred:
MR. BREEDLOVE: I would do my best to do that. 1
THE COURT: And do you think you can do that sir?
MR. BREEDLOVE: Yes.
THE COURT: To the best you can?
MR. BREEDLOVE: As best l ean.

The trial court found ■ Mr. Breedlove could be fair and denied defendant’s challenge for cause over defense counsel’s objection that Mr. Breedlove’s- prior experience regarding the armed robbery of his brother-in-law would affect his decision in this case. Defendant now contends that, the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause as to Mr, Breedlove, whose responses clearly indicated he could not be a fair and impartial juror.. Specifically, defendant claims that Mr. Breedlove’s answers during -voir dire,' namely, that the recent robbery of his | ^brother-in-law was “fresh on his mind,” that -he harbored resentment regarding armed robberies because of the incident with his brother-in-law, that he would not want himself to be on the jury if he were: the defendant, and that he admitted this was not the right case for him, rendered him, without sufficient rehabilitation, incapable of “keeping an open mind.” We find no merit to defendant’s arguments.

A prospective juror in a criminal trial is not automatically rendered incompetent to serve because a relative was a crime victim. This is true even when the crime is similar to the one with which the defendant stands charged. The pertinent inquiry focuses on whether the prospective juror states that he can put aside the experiences of relatives and be fair and impartial to the State and the defendant. State v. Magee, 150 So.3d at 454.

Louisiana courts have consistently upheld the denial of challenges for cause of prospective jurors whose relatives have been crime victims when the juror states that he or she would be fair and impartial in rendering a verdict. For example, this Court, in State v. Magee, supra at 454-55,, found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of a challenge for cause of a prospective juror whose brother-in-law had been the victim of crimes similar to those with which the defendant was charged. In the . Magee case, the defendant was charged with and convicted of one count of second degree murder and two counts of assault by drive-by shooting. The defendant appealed his conviction arguing that a prospective juror should have been excused for cause after he disclosed that his brother-in-law had been murdered in a drive-by shooting. The defendant noted that during voir dire the prospective juror acknowledged that he might have a problem listening to the evidence based on the death in his family and that he would not make a very good juror because of the type of case. The trial judge denied the defendant’s challenge for cause finding that he was rehabilitated and could be fair and impartial despite the fact that his brother-in-law had been murdered. This Court agreed, noting that Inthe prospective juror’s responses as a whole demonstrated his willingness and ability to be a fair and impartial juror. This Court further noted that the record contained no suggestion that the prospective juror’s experience with a crime victim would bias him or would affect his ability to apply the law as written. Lastly, this Court commented that the rehabilitation of the prospective juror appeared sufficient to overcome any alleged partiality elicited by the defense counsel during his questioning of the prospective juror.

Likewise, in State v. Mazique, 09-845 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/27/10), 40 So.3d 224, writ denied, 10-1198 (La. 12/17/10), 51 So.3d 19, the defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his challenge for cause as to a prospective juror who, in a case based on charges of aggravated incest and pornography involving juveniles, could not be impartial because her daughter had been sexually molested as a child. During voir dire, the prospective juror stated that she did not know whether her experience would affect her ability to sit on the jury but indicated that she had not formed an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. When the prosecutor asked the prospective juror whether she could be fair and impartial to both sides, she responded, “I think I can ... It’s so hard.” Later when asked the same question, she stated, “I can. It will be hard, but I can.” Upon further questioning by defense counsel, the prospective juror indicated that the incident in her life was very traumatic and she was visibly shaken by it every time she thought about it. She also agreed that given the nature of the case, the incident would weigh heavily on her mind.

The defendant in Mazique challenged the prospective juror for cause on the basis that she was “visibly shaken and very emotional and upset by the whole thing.” The trial judge denied the challenge finding that she was rehabilitated and could be fair. On appeal, this Court noted that the prospective juror demonstrated a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the evidence |12and further noted that the prospective juror’s responses as a whole did not reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or inability to render a judgment according to law could be reasonably implied. Thus, this Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s challenge for cause.

Similarly, the prospective juror in this case demonstrated a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and evidence, and his responses, as a whole, did not reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or inability to render a judgment according to law could be reasonably implied. Moreover, we note the rehabilitation of the prospective juror appeared sufficient to overcome any alleged partiality elicited by defense counsel during his questioning of the prospective juror. We particularly note that after Mr. Breedlove indicated that this might not be the best case for him since his brother-in-law was the victim of an armed robbery, he thereafter declared his ability to separate himself from his prior experience concerning his brother-in-law and judge the case solely on the evidence so as to render a fair and impartial verdict after applying the law as instructed. Considering the foregoing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause as to Mr. Breedlove.

DENIAL OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

(Pro Se Assignment of Error Number One)

In his first pro se assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements. He specifically contends that his statements were not freely and voluntarily given but rather were the product of police threats and coercion. In particular, defendant contends that Detective Rumore and Lieutenant Russo threatened to inform his wife’s employer that she had a narcotics charge. Defendant also maintains that the time lapse between the | lsexecution of the waiver of rights form, which occurred at 11:19 p.m,, and his first statement, which began at 1:39 a.m., indicates police coercion.

In the present case, defendant filed a motion to suppress alleging generally that his statements had been “illegally and unlawfully obtained.” At the October 1, 2013 suppression hearing, Detective Rumore and Lieutenant Russo recounted the circumstances surrounding the taking of defendant’s statements. Detective Rumore testified that he presented defendant with a rights of arrestee form and went over each individual right with defendant. Defendant then initialed next to each right indicating he understood his rights and signed at the bottom of the form signifying that he read his rights and wished to waive them. Detective Rumore testified that he believed defendant understood his rights when he executed the waiver of rights form.

Detective Rumore further testified that he was present for the statements given by-defendant on April 1, 2011, at 1:39 a.m. and' 2:05 a.m., and that neither he nor Lieutenant Russo used any force, coercion, intimidation, or promises in order to obtain the statements in which defendant confessed to the crimes. Detective Rumore acknowledged that defendant indicated during'his first statement that he had a drug problem; however, he maintained that defendant did not appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics at the time he executed the waiver of rights form. During his testimony, Detective Rumore addressed the time lapse between defendant’s signing of the waiver of rights form at 11:19 p.m. and the taking of defendant’s first statement at 1:39 a.m. and explained that this time lapse was due to a simultaneous search of defendant’s residence during which evidence was located and used in the interrogation.

Next, Lieutenant Russo testified that he participated in all three of the recorded statements made by defendant on April 1, 2011, at 1:39 a.m., 2:05 a.m., and 2:34 a.m. Lieutenant Rüsso confirmed that he alone took defendant’s third [urecorded statement and that at no point did defendant request to consult with an attorney. He further stated that he did not make promises of leniency, nor did he force, coerce, or intimidate defendant into providing statements. Further, Lieutenant Russo testified that defendant appeared to understand and communicated intelligently throughout the interviews. Lieutenant Russo likewise acknowledged that defendant indicated he was addicted to heroin; however, he did not ask defendant if he was on heroin at the time of the statements because defendant “was talking like a normal person. His reactions were- normal. There was nothing indicative of him being on drugs.”

At the conclusion of the testimony, defense counsel argued for the suppression of defendant’s statements on the ground that they were not knowingly and intelligently given. He argued that defendant’s heroin addiction impaired his ability to understand the questions asked and the consequences of his statements. In response, the State argued that the testimony of the officers established that defendant was not impaired when he provided his statements and that he was competent at the time of the interviews.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements, finding there was no testimony or evidence to suggest that defendant “did not understand the consequences, or understood the circumstances and consequences of his statements and/or information provided to the detectives.” The trial court further commented that defendant’s suggestion that “at the time that he gave the statements there were adverse affects .[sic] from, maybe, being on heroin, is nothing but speculation or conjecture.”

Defendant now challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements. In his pro se supplemental brief, defendant contends that his statements were not freely and voluntarily given but rather were the product of police threats and coercion. In particular, defendant contends that Detective |1fiRumore and Lieutenant Russo threatened to inform his wife’s employer that she had a narcotics charge and thus destroy her pharmaceutical career. Defendant also maintains that the time lapse between the execution of the waiver of rights form and his first statement indicates police coercion. Defendant did not advance these arguments about police coercion either in his written motion to suppress or at the suppression hearing. In addition, although defendant testified at trial regarding his statements, as well as the alleged coercion employed by the officers to obtain his statements, he did not object to the volun-tariness of his statements on this basis at trial.

Articulating a new basis for the motion to suppress for the first time on appeal is prohibited under La. C.Cr.P. art. 841, since the trial court would not be afforded an opportunity to consider the merits of the particular claim. State v. Harris, 414 So.2d 325 (La. 1982). Louisiana courts have long held that.a defendant may not raise new grounds for suppressing evidence on appeal that he did not raise at the trial court in a motion to suppress. State v. Montejo, 06-1807 (La. 5/11/10), 40 So.3d 952, 967, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1082, 131 S.Ct. 656, 178 L.Ed.2d 513 (2010); State v. Jackson, 04-1388 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/05), 904 So.2d 907, writ denied, 05-1740 (La. 2/10/06), 924 So.2d 162. In the present case, since defendant did not present these specific arguments about police coercion either in his written motion to suppress or at the suppression hearing, he is now precluded from raising these new bases for suppression of his statements for the first time on appeal.

| ^Nonetheless, we have reviewed the actual argument advanced by defendant at the suppression hearing that heroin addiction impaired his ability to understand the questions asked and the consequences of his statements, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress statements. Specifically, at the suppression hearing, the State presented the testimony of Detective Rumore and Lieutenant Russo that showed that defendant was advised of his rights prior to making his statements, that defendant initialed next to each right on the rights of arrestee form indicating he understood his rights, and that he signed the form signifying that he read his- rights and that he wished to waive them. In addition, Detective Rumore and Lieutenant Russo testified that they did .not make any promises to defendant, nor use any force, coercion, or intimidation in order to obtain the statements. During their testimony at the suppression hearing, the officers acknowledged that defendant indicated during his first statement that he had a drug problem; however, they maintained, that defendant did not act like.he was.intoxicated.or under the influence of narcotics and that he appeared to understand and communicated intelligently throughout the interviews.

After considering the testimony at the suppression hearing, as well as defendant’s argument that his heroin addiction affected the voluntariness of his statements, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress finding that there was no testimony or evidence to suggest that defendant “did not understand the consequences, or understood the circumstances and consequences of his statements and/or information provided to the detectives.” A determination of voluntariness is made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the totality of the facts and circumstances of each situation. The admissibility of a confession or statement is a determination for the trial judge and the judge’s conclusions on the credibility and 117weight of the testimony relating to the voluntariness of a confession or statement are entitled to great weight and will not be overturned on appeal unless unsupported by the evidence. State v. Arias-Chavarria, 10-116 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/10), 49 So.3d 426, 433, writ denied, 10-2432 (La. 2/25/11), 58 So.3d 460. In the present case, the trial court’s conclusions regarding the voluntariness of defendant’s statements are supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress statements.

DENIAL OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES FORM

(Pro Se Assignment of Error Number Two)

In his second pro se assignment of error, defendant argues that the exigent circumstances form used by police to obtain co-defendant Isaac’s telephone records, from which defendant’s phone number was gained, violated the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution through circumvention. He contends that with the form, Lieutenant Russo alone was able to determine that exigent circumstances existed to allow him access to phone records without independent judicial consideration of the evidence. Accordingly, defendant concludes that the trial court’s failure to exclude the phone records that Lieutenant Russo obtained via the exigent circumstances form should justify reversal of his conviction because the records were used to link defendant to Isaac and to pinpoint defendant’s location at the time of the armed robberies.

The facts adduced at the suppression hearing, as well as at trial, establish that after determining Isaac’s identity from fingerprints located at the scene of one of the robberies, a search warrant for Isaac’s residence was obtained and executed. While at Isaac’s residence, Isaac’s girlfriend provided Detective Rumore with Isaac’s cell phone number. With this information, Lieutenant Russo then executed an exigent circumstances request form addressed to Sprint/Nextel, seeking Isaac’s subscriber information, call detail records, cell site information, precision location 11sof the mobile device (GPS), and any text messages available. Sprint/Nextel provided the requested information to the sheriffs office, which included a call detail log based on cell phone use between March 18, 2011, and March 25, 2011. From this -log, it was discovered that telephone number (504) 701-XXXX had contacted Isaac around the time of the robberies. Accordingly, Detective Rumore obtained a court order for the cell phone records associated with cell phone number (504) 701-XXXX. Through investigation, the officers ultimately discovered that the cell phone belonged to defendant, and upon analysis of the records, the officers believed defendant to be connected to Isaac and the armed robberies.

Isaac filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which was heard simultaneously with defendant’s motion to suppress statements. During the hearing, Lieutenant Russo explained the necessity to obtain Isaac’s cell phone records via an exigent circumstances request, which requires the officer to declare an exigent situation involving: a) immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury to any person; b) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime; or c) an immediate threat to a national security interest. He testified:

We have Heroin addicts running around Jefferson Parish robbing businesses that are occupied by civilians. Placing them on the ground face down with a gun to the back of their head. We felt that it was a matter of time before a gun could of [sic] accidently discharged, or one of the victims didn’t cooperate, and could become a victim of a homicide. So, we felt there was an immediate threat to one of the citizens [sic] lives in this parish.

He further testified that he received additional information that Isaac “might become violent toward police and flee the area.” At the conclusion of the hearing, Isaac’s counsel moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the exigent circumstances request form, arguing that the form contained false information provided by Lieutenant Russo regarding the exigent circumstances which allowed for the warrantless search of his cell phone information. The court denied Isaac’s 119motion to suppress evidence, finding there existed exigent circumstances, and that the information provided by Lieutenant Russo regarding the exigency of the situation appeared credible.

First, it is noted that the exigent circumstances request form referenced by defendant on appeal did not pertain to his cell phone records. Rather, the exigent circumstances form executed by Lieutenant Russo requested subscriber information from Sprint/Nextel pertaining to Isaac’s cell phone. Based on Isaac’s cell phone records obtained pursuant to this request, a court order was then signed by Commissioner Carol Kiff of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, ordering an authorized representative of Sprint/Nextel to relinquish subscriber information for defendant’s cell phone, including call record logs and cell site information. Thus, defendant’s cell phone records were validly obtained via court order issued by a neutral magistrate.

Nevertheless, since defendant was adversely affected by the warrantless search of Isaac’s cell phone records, he has standing to challenge the legality of the alleged unconstitutional seizure of Isaac’s cell phone records. La. Const. Art. I, § 5; State v. Jackson, 09-1983 (La. 7/6/10), 42 So.3d 368, 371-72.

Defendant argues that the exigent circumstances form violated the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, allowing Isaac’s phone records to be obtained without independent judicial consideration of the evidence. He asserts that the trial court’s failure to exclude Isaac’s phone records was detrimental to his case because the information contained in the records was used to link him to Isaac and the crimes committed.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. War-rantless seizures are per se unreasonable unless they can be justified under one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. State v. Bone, 12-34 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/11/12), 107 So.3d 49, writ denied, 12-2229 (La. 4/1/13), 110 So.3d 574.

However, a defendant only has standing to challenge an infringement on his Fourth Amendment right when he is able to claim a justifiable, reasonable, or legitimate expectation of privacy in the item seized. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). To determine if a defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, a court must not only consider whether the person had an actual or subjective expectation of privacy, but also whether that expectation is of a type which society at large is prepared to recognize as being reasonable. State v. Ragsdale, 381 So.2d 492, 497 (La. 1980); State v. Bone, 107 So.3d at 63.

The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties because any reasonable expectation of privacy is destroyed when the risk of disclosure is assumed. Smith, 442 U.S. at 743-44, 99 S.Ct. at 2582. However, the Supreme Court has also recognized a “content exception” which draws a distinction between the content of a communication and the data log stored by a third party associated with such communication. See Smith, supra (discussing the distinction between the contents of a telephone call for which a legitimate expectation of privacy exists and the listing of actual phone numbers dialed for which no privacy expectation exists). Based on this established jurisprudence, this Court in State v. Bone, supra, held that a defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call detail record log associated with his phone number.

Here, pursuant to the exigent circumstances request, Sprint/Nextel provided Lieutenant Russo with a call detail record log from Isaac’s cell phone. This log was then analyzed and used to obtain a court order for defendant’s cell phone 12i.records, due to the high volume of calls made between Isaac and defendant around the times of the robberies. Defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call detail record log associated with his phone number or that of Isaac’s phone number, and thus, no infringement of his Fourth Amendment right occurred. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the exigent circumstances form.

ERRORS PATENT REVIEW

We have also reviewed the record for errors patent and have found none. La. C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La. 1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1990).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, we affirm defendant’s convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED

      . Jonathan R. Isaac was also named as a co-defendant in the bill of information; however, he was tried separately from defendant.

      . Mr. Patel testified with the assistancé of an interpreter at trial,

      . Ms. Arthur was deceased at the timé of trial.

      . Defendant signed a consent form giving the officers authority to search his car.

      . During rebuttal, Lieutenant Russo and Detective Rumore denied any physical contact with defendant and further denied threatening him into giving a confession.

      . On appeal, the State asserts that defendant failed to object to the denial of his challenge for cause as to prospective juror Breedlove, and therefore, did not preserve this issue for appeal. Although defendant did not formally object to the trial court's denial of his challenge for cause, he did give reasons for his challenge of Mr. Breedlove. Defense counsel's actions, which consisted of stating his grounds for a cause challenge and then removing the juror with one of his remaining peremptory challenges, sufficiently preserved this issue for review. See La. C.Cr.P. art. 841(A) and State v. Pinion, 06-2346 (La. 10/26/07), 968 So.2d 131, 136 (per curiam ).

      . On appeal, defendant relies on State v. Galliano, 93-1101 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/5/95), 655 So.2d 538, to support his contention that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause as to Mr. Breedlove. We have reviewed the Galliano case and find it to be distinguishable from the instant case. In Galliano, no attempt was made to rehabilitate the prospective juror by further questioning after she indicated that she had some reservations about whether she would be able to keep an open mind; however, in the instant case, the challenged juror was rehabilitated regarding any alleged partiality elicited by defense counsel during his questioning.

      . A ruling made adversely to the defendant prior to trial upon a motion to suppress a confession or statement does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence during the trial concerning the circumstances surrounding the making of the confession or statement for the purpose of enabling the jury to determine the weight to be given the confession or statement. La, C.Cr.P. art. 703(G).

      . Even though defendant testified about the alleged coercion at trial, he is nonetheless precluded from raising on appeal the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress based on police coercion. The Louisiana Supreme Court has stated:
      "We have never allowed a defendant to allege facts for the first time in trial testimony which would support a new argument for suppression of evidence, and have a reviewing court consider those facts in determining whether the district court should have granted a motion to suppress on grounds that were never argued to, or considered by, the district court,” State v. Montejo, 40 So.3d at 969-70.

      .The State has the burden of proving the admissibility of a purported confession or statement by the defendant. La. C.Cr.P. art. 703(D).

      . Although this phone number came back as registered to defendant's wife, the number was connected to defendant through a field interview card relating to defendant and his wife that was in the computer data base.

      . The trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress is afforded great weight and will not be set aside unless the preponderance of the evidence clearly favors suppression. State v. Butler, 01-907 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/02), 812 So.2d 120, 124.