INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
GUY JENKINS, MARTIN REINSCHMIDT, AND THE ELECTED BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
RE GUY JENKINS, MARTIN REINSCHMIDT, AND THE ELECTED
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF
FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE DANYELLE M. TAYLOR, DIVISION
''O'', NUMBER 785-301
composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Robert A.
Chaisson, and Stephen J. Windhorst
GRANTED. STAY DENIED.
Guy Jenkins, Martin Reinschmidt, and the Elected Board of
Directors of the Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana seek
review of the district court's denial of their motion for
suspensive appeal of the district court's January 31,
2019 judgment granting plaintiffs' petition for writ of
quo warranto and ordering injunctive relief in their favor.
The district court denied defendants' motion for
suspensive appeal, finding that the judgment granted
injunctive relief, and thus falls under La. C.C.P. art. 3612,
which provides that an appeal from a judgment relating to a
preliminary or final injunction shall not be suspended during
the pendency of an appeal unless the court in its discretion
so orders. This Court ordered supplementation of the writ
application with portions of the transcript from the hearing
on the motion for suspensive appeal. Plaintiffs/respondents
filed their opposition to the writ application on February
filed a petition for quo warrant against defendants and
requested the following: (1) reinstatement to full
membership; (2) defendants be enjoined from suspending or
expelling plaintiffs; (3) full and unrestricted access to the
next Grand Lodge members' meeting; (4) reports by Appeals
and Grievances Committee be quashed; (5) consideration of all
resolutions in their entirety by the representatives of the
membership; (6) defendants be enjoined from restricting
consideration of resolutions submitted for a meeting; (7)
that a meeting and elections be held in Jefferson Parish
within ninety days of the filing of the petition for quo
warranto; (8) that defendants bear all costs of proceedings;
and (9) all improperly rejected resolutions be submitted at
the next meeting.
assert that they are entitled to a suspensive appeal because
the party cast in a quo warranto proceeding has the right to
appeal suspensively, and the challenged judgement grants a
writ of quo warranto not injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs/respondents assert that the district court has the
authority to grant injunctive relief in a quo warranto
proceeding, that the judgment encompasses injunctive relief,
and, as a result, defendants are not entitled to a suspensive
appeal under La. C.C.P. art. 3612.
review of the writ application, attachments thereto and
particularly the judgment at issue, we find that the relators
are entitled to a suspensive appeal. Generally, suspensive
appeal is the rule; the non-suspensive appeal is the
exception. Ramos v. Ramos, 173 La. 407, 409, 137 So.
196, 197 (1927). Louisiana courts have narrowly construed
exceptions to the general right of suspensive appeal and have
concluded that general principles governing appeal are
applicable to review of judgments in quo warranto. See
Pioneer Petroleum Corp. v. Gertler, 187 So.2d 205
(La.App. 4 Cir. 1966). Thus, when a statute provides an
exception to such a legal right as appeal, it must be
construed narrowly and its application limited to the
language of the statute.
La. C.C.P. art. 3612 sets forth specific exceptions for
TRO's, preliminary injunctions, and "final"
injunctions, it does not set forth an exception for
suspensive appeals from issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
In Pioneer Petroleum, supra, after issuing
a detailed writ of quo warranto with a series of imperatives
and prohibitions as in this case, the trial court then denied
a suspensive appeal. The appellate court granted a suspensive
appeal to the party seeking review of the judgment granting
the writ of quo warranto.
case similarly involves grant of a quo warranto.
Plaintiffs' original petition was titled petition for
writ of quo warranto. The allegations of the petition focus
on defendants' failure to comply with the Grand
Lodge's Handbook of Masonic Law, which presents the
Constitution, General Regulations, and Edits of the Grand
Lodge. A quo warranto proceeding can address whether an
individual has authority to exercise certain powers, and such
appears to be an issue here. While the district court's
judgment specifically granted plaintiffs' petition for
quo warranto as well as injunctive relief, the district court
may award injunctive relief in connection with a writ of quo
warranto. Thorton v. Carthon, 47, 948 (La.App. 2
Cir. 5/15/13), 114 So.3d 554. Although the case before us
involves injunctive relief related to a writ of quo warranto,
we conclude that this is a quo warranto proceeding, and that
therefore, C.C.P. art. 3612 does not apply. Moreover,
inasmuch as there is no exception to a suspensive appeal for
a writ of quo warranto, the general rules of appeal apply and
thus indicate that relators are entitled to a suspensive
addition, in Antwine v. Winfield, 2015-1850 (La.App.
1 Cir. 9/16/16), 203 So.3d 454, 460, the appellate court
found that although the trial court used the word
"enjoined" in its judgment when referring to the
action of defendants and that plaintiffs requested injunctive
relief separate and apart from their request for a writ of
quo warranto in their petition, the trial court's
judgment appeared to be a judgment on the merits of the
petition for quo warranto. The judgment stated that it is on
a petition for writ of quo warranto and granted relief
consistent with the grant of a quo warranto writ.
See La. C.C.P. art. 3902. The court found that the
general rules of appeal, establishing thirty-day and
sixty-day delays to take an appeal, applied to that judgment.
See La. C.C.P. arts. 2123 and 2087.
injunctive relief under La. C.C.P. art. 3601 requires a
finding of irreparable injury, loss, or damage. Here,
plaintiffs/respondents did not allege or prove irreparable
injury, and there was no finding of irreparable injury by the
light of the foregoing, we find that this case involves a
writ of quo warranto, and that defendants are entitled to a
suspensive appeal. We therefore reverse the trial court's
judgment denying the motion for suspensive appeal, and we
grant relators' motion for suspensive appeal. Given the
impending deadline for relators to perfect their suspensive
appeal and that such cannot be ...