Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

DOCKET NUMBER: CA 10-280

_________________________________________________________________

RICHARD J. HEATH COURT OF APPEAL


PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT

VERSUS THIRD CIRCUIT

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, ET AL STATE OF LOUISIANA


DEFENDANT - APPELLEE
__________________________________________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF


RAPIDES, STATE OF LOUISIANA; THE HONORABLE HARRY F.
RANDOW.
__________________________________________________________________

REPLY BRIEF FILED ON BEHALF


OF PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT
RICHARD J. HEATH
__________________________________________________________________

CIVIL
__________________________________________________________________

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

______________________________
GREGORY R. AYMOND
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Post Office Drawer 5503
3229 Industrial Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71307
Tele: (318) 445-3618
Fax: (318) 448-6133
Bar Role No.: 17,449
Attorney for Richard J. Heath
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities.................................................................................. ii

Argument and Law.................................................................................... 1-2

Conclusion................................................................................................ 2

Certificate of Service................................................................................ 3

Exhibits

Oral Reasons for Judgment............................................................ 4-17

Order............................................................................................... 18-19

i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

Article XII § 3............................................................................................... 1-2


Article XII § 10(C)........................................................................................ 1

STATE STATUTES AND CODES

LSA-R.S. 44:35........................................................................................... 1

STATE CASES

Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institution, 111 So. 2d 126 (La. 1959).......... 1


Heath v. City of Alexandria, 11 So.3d 569 (La. App. 3rd Cir., 2009)......... 1

ii
ARGUMENT and LAW

I. THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA DID, DESPITE STATEMENTS TO THE


CONTRARY, VIOLATE THE PUBLIC RECORDS LAW:

Despite what counsel for the City of Alexandria would have you believe,

the City of Alexandria was held by this Court to have violated the Public Records

Law. See: Heath v. City of Alexandria, 11 So.3d 569 (La. App. 3rd Cir., 2009).

It is plain and simple. The City of Alexandria violated the law.

II. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TOTALLY MISSES THE POINT ON


LOUISIANA CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE XII § 10(C) IS OVERRULED
BY THE MORE SPECIFIC ARTICLE XII § 3 RELATING TO PUBLIC
RECORDS:

The Appellee’s brief cited Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institution, 111 So.

2d 126 (La. 1959), for the proposition that any provision of a statute which

mandates a city to pay a judgment is unconstitutional. That case dealt with the

payment of damages in tort and is totally distinct from an attorney fee award for

the violation of the Public Records Law.

That case was also decided before the 1974 Louisiana Constitution.

Additionally, the City of Alexandria failed to join the Louisiana Attorney

General into the lawsuit and did not even plead the unconstitutionality of LSA-

R.S. 44:35 and its attorney fee provisions for the violation of the Public Records

Law.

The vast majority of the other cases cited by the City of Alexandria does not

even address the graveman of this issue. This Court must decide whether

Louisiana Constitution Article XII § 10(C) takes precedence over the provisions

1
of Article XII § 3 and its recognition of our Public Records Law.

This Court is called upon to answer the question of does the Court’s award

in a Public Records case mean anything or not.

III. THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA FAILS TO ARGUE PLAINTIFF-


APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS THAT THE TRIAL COURT
COMMITTED MANIFEST ERRORS BY NOT ALLOWING ANY
WITNESSES, BY NOT HOLDING A HEARING ON IF THE CITY
ATTORNEY COULD TESTIFY, AND NOT HOLDING AN
CONTRADICTORY HEARING ON THE CONTINUANCE OR THE
QUASHING OF SUBPOENAS:

The Appellee puts the cart before the horse on these issues. It argues that,

since the Trial Court was correct in its judgment, it did not have to follow the

Code of Civil Procedure in this case.

It is submitted that the Trial Court still had to follow the Code of Civil

Procedure and the Code of Evidence to hear all of the testimony before it ruled

herein.

CONCLUSION

It is for the above reasons that the original arguments made in the brief of

the Plaintiff-Appellant should be followed and that there be judgment in his favor.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

______________________________
GREGORY R. AYMOND
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Post Office Drawer 5503
3229 Industrial Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71307
Tele: (318) 445-3618
Fax: (318) 448-6133
Bar Role No.: 17,449
Attorney for Richard J. Heath

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, do swear that a copy of the foregoing pleading was


served upon all counsel of record herein, and upon the Trial Judge, via United
States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, on this the ____ day of _____________,
2010.

________________________________
GREGORY R. AYMOND

Honorable Harry F. Randow Lewis O. Lauve, Jr.


Judge, Ninth Judicial District Court Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1431 Post Office Box 307
701 Murray Street 2025 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71309 Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
(318) 443-6893 (318) 449-1937