FROM ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 119-078,
DIVISION "A" Honorable Robert A. Buckley, Judge
Salvador J. Randazzo/IN PROPER PERSON SALVADOR J. RANDAZZO,
PLC ATTORNEY AT LAW P. Michael Breeden THE BREEDEN LAW FIRM,
L.L.C. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
William M. McGoey ST. BERNARD PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Rosemary Ledet,
Judge Terrell Broussard, Pro Tempore
A. Lombard Judge
appeal is from the April 23, 2015, trial court judgment
denying the second petition for injunctive relief filed
against the St. Bernard Parish Government and Road Home
Corporation d/b/a Louisiana Land Trust by the
plaintiff/appellant, Salvador Randazzo. After review of the
judgment in light of the record, the applicable law, and the
arguments of the parties, we affirm the trial court judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
Randazzo is the executor of his parents' successions
which include ownership of the home at 2020 Livaccari Drive
in St. Bernard Parish. The Randazzo home, like 90% of St.
Bernard Parish, suffered severe damage from Hurricane
Katrina. Mr. Randazzo does not reside in St. Bernard Parish.
November 18, 2014, the trial court granted an injunction
preventing the sale of 2024 Livacarri Drive for a sixty-day
period during which Mr. Randazzo was afforded the opportunity
to correct code violations on the property and file an application
for purchase of the property next door pursuant to the
"Lot Next Door" program. The "Lot Next
Door" program (LND) was designed by the Road Home
Program d/b/a as Louisiana Land Trust to aid neighborhood
recovery after Katrina wherein homeowners who had returned
and rebuilt their property were given the right of first
refusal to purchase neighboring uninhabited properties at
substantially discounted prices. The LND required that the
property used as a basis to purchase the adjoining property
be without existing code violations. Mr. Randazzo did not
appeal the judgment of November 18, 2014, and that judgment
is not at issue in this appeal.
March 3, 2015, Mr. Randazzo filed a petition against St.
Bernard Parish and the Road Home Corporation d/b/a Louisiana
Land Trust characterized as a rule to show cause why St.
Barnard Parish should not be enjoined from (1) selling the
property at 2024 Livacarri; (2) requiring him to obtain
permits to perform work on codal violations; and (3) taking
any action pertaining to the pool or pool cover at 2020
Livacarri. The focus of Mr. Randazzo's complaint appears
to be codal violations cited by St. Bernard pursuant to an
inspection of the property at 2020 Livacarri that occurred
shortly after the judgment of November 18, 2014.
March 18, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on Mr.
Randazzo's petition. Mr. Randazzo testified that he
understood the sixty day deadline placed on him by the
judgment of November 18, 2014; that he received a letter on
November 24, 2014, advising him of code violations on the
property; and that, although he sent emails to various
employees in the St. Bernard Parish government objecting to
the cited problems, he took no actions to remediate the
purported codal violations.
April 23, 2015, the trial judge denied Mr. Randazzo's
petition for preliminary injunction against St. Bernard
Parish, finding that Mr. Randazzo failed to comply with the
judgment of November 18, 2014, within the stipulated
sixty-day period and, therefore, St. Bernard Parish was free
to transfer the lot to the next qualifying applicant. In his
reasons for judgment, the trial judge observed that after the
November 18, 2014, judgment, Mr. Randazzo was cited for
additional code violations and, although given the right to
remedy those violations within the stipulated period, failed
to correct the problems. With regard to Mr. Randazzo's
allegation that he had been singled out and treated more
harshly than other applicants, the trial judge found that Mr.
Randazzo presented no credible evidence to establish
discrimination for purposes of injunctive relief. He also
noted that Mr. Randazzo did not dispute the existence of the
codal violations, only questioning the motives of St. Bernard
Parish in citing him for the violations. Thus, because Mr.
Randazzo failed to comply with the LND requirements
(including the requirement that a property be without code
violation to qualify as the basis for transfer of a lot)
within the time period stipulated in the judgment of November
18, 2014, the trial judge found that Mr. Randazzo was not
entitled to further injunctive relief. The trial judge
observed that Mr. Randazzo maintained the right to pursue
monetary damages for discriminatory actions by St. Barnard
Parish if proved at trial, but meanwhile he was required to
maintain the property (like every other landowner in St.
Bernard Parish) according to the code on a continuing basis
regardless of the periphery impact of the failure to do so
upon land acquisition opportunities.
7, 2015, Mr. Randazzo filed a notice of intention to apply
for supervisory writ. Because Mr. Randazzo was seeking relief
from an appealable judgment, this court remanded the matter
to the trial court and ordered that the trial court treat the
timely filed notice of intent as a timely filed notice of
appeal. Randazzo v. St. Bernard Parish Government,
15-1067 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/7/15) (citing La. Code Civ. Proc.
a preliminary injunction is an interlocutory procedural
device designed to preserve the existing status quo pending a
trial of the issues on the merits of the case, the court only
considers whether (1) the moving party has met its burden of
proving that it will suffer irreparable injury, loss, or
damage if an injunction is not issued; (2) the moving party
is entitled to the relief sought as a matter of law; and (3)
the moving party will likely prevail on the merits.
Women's Health Clinic v. State, 01-2645, p. 2
(11/9/01), 804 So.2d 625, 626 (citation omitted). Notably,
"irreparable injury" means the petitioner cannot be
adequately compensated in money damages for his injury.
HCNO Services, Inc. v. Secure Computing Systems,
Inc., 96-1753, 96-1693, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/23/97),
693 So.2d 835, 843. Moreover, in addition to irreparable
injury, the petitioner must show that he is entitled to the
relief sought and must make a prima facie showing
that he will prevail on the merits of the case. General
Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Daniels, 377 So.2d 346
standard of review for a preliminary injunction is whether
the trial court abused its discretion in ruling. Historic
Restoration, Inc. v. RSUI Indemnity Co., 06-1178, ...