Supreme Court of Louisiana ______

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA _______________________________________ Docket No. 19-C-160 ________________________________________ STEVE CROOKS AND ERA LEA CROOKS VS. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ______________________________________________ On Application for Writ of Certiorari or Review From the Third Circuit Court of Appeal Docket No. 17-00750-CA 9th Judicial District Court Rapides Parish, Louisiana, Case No. 224,262 The Honorable James H. Boddie, Jr., Presiding Judge Ad Hoc CIVIL PROCEEDING ______________________________________________ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RESPONSE TO AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS FILED BY THE RAPIDES PARISH POLICY JURY, THE LASALLE PARISH POLICE JURY, THE RAPIDES PARISH GRAVITY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 1, THE RAPIDES PARISH GRAVITY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 2, THE CATAHOULA LAKE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS, AND THE LOUISIANA CRAWFISH PRODUCERS’ ASSOCIATION – WEST, INC. PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS _______________________________________________ J. Michael Veron (#07570) James J. Davidson, III (#4708) J. Rock Palermo III (#21793) Christopher J. Piasecki (#25827) Alonzo P. Wilson (#13547) DAVIDSON, MEAUX, SONNIER, MCELLIGOTT, Turner D. Brumby (#33519) FONTENOT, GIDEON & EDWARDS VERON, BICE, PALERMO & WILSON, LLC P.O. Box 2908 P.O. Box 2125 Lafayette, LA 70502-2908 Lake Charles, LA 70602-2125 Telephone: (337) 237-1660 Telephone: (337) 310-1600 Facsimile: (337) 237-3676 Facsimile: (337) 310-1601 V. Russell Purvis (#10909) SMITH, TALIAFERRO & PURVIS 407 Mound Street P.O. Box 298 Jonesville, LA 71343 Telephone: (318) 339-8526 Facsimile: (318) 339-8528 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES ..........................................................2 I. The Court should strike the Patent amici’s briefs .........................................................2 II. The Patent amici’s claim that the Plaintiffs are collaterally attacking United States Patents and GLO Surveys is unsupported ...................................................................3 a. No party has attempted to collaterally attack any United States patent or GLO surveys ....................................................................................................................3 b. The body of water in the Catahoula Basin in 1812 was navigable and state law controls .............................................................................................................4 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................5 CERTIFICATE AND VERIFICATION OF SERVICE ........................................................7 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITY Cases Page Barfield v. Bolotte, 2015-0847, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/15), 185 So.3d 781 ............................................... 1, 2, 3 Barney v. City of Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324 (1876) ...................................................................................................................... 4 Boudreaux v. State Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 2001-1329, p. 2 (La. 2/26/02), 815 So.2d 7 ................................................................................ 2 Dean v. Southmark Const., 2003-1051, p. 6 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So.2d 112 .............................................................................. 2 Kean v. Calumet Canal & Improvement Co., 190 U.S. 452 (1903) .................................................................................................................... 4 Marks v. New Orleans Police Dep’t, 2006-0575, p. 8 (La. 11/29/06), 943 So.2d 1028 .................................................................... 2, 3 Perot v. Police Jury of Natchitoches Parish, 22 So.2d 666 (La. 1945) ...................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3 Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) ...................................................................................................................... 4 Prest v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2012-0513, p. 18 (La. 12/4/12), 125 So.3d 1079 ........................................................................ 2 Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1 (1894) ........................................................................................................................ 5 State ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs of Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dist. v. Capdeville, 83 So. 421 (La. 1919) .................................................................................................................. 4 State v. Richardson, 72 So. 984 (La. 1916) .................................................................................................................. 5 Thomas v. Bridges, 2013-1855, pp. 11-12 (La. 5/7/14), 144 So.3d 1001 ................................................................... 2 Vermilion Par. Police Jury v. Williams, 2002-12, p. 5 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/3/02), 824 So.2d 466 ........................................................... 2, 3 Statutes and Court Rules LA. CIV. CODE. art. 450 ................................................................................................................... 5 LA. CIV. CODE. art. 456 ................................................................................................................... 5 Rules of the Supreme Court of Louisiana VII, §12 ........................................................................1 iii INTRODUCTION On or about January 28, 2019, several entities—including the Rapides Parish Policy Jury, the LaSalle Parish Police Jury, the Rapides Parish Gravity Drainage District No. 1, the Rapides Parish Gravity Drainage District No. 2, the Catahoula Lake Fish and Game Commission, the National Society of Professional Surveyors, and the Louisiana Crawfish Producers’ Association – West, Inc. (collectively, the “Patent amici”)—submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of the Defendant/Applicant in this case, the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Natural Resources (the “State”). Under Rule VII, Section 12 of this Court, amicus briefs are only permitted if they will be helpful to the Court in more thoroughly analyzing and deciding the issues presented in a case. SUP. CT. RULE VII, § 12; see also Barfield v. Bolotte, 2015-0847, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/15), 185 So.3d 781, 784, writ denied, 2016-0307 (La. 5/13/16), 191 So.3d 1058 (recognizing that amicus must “meet the basic requirement of stating specific reasons why [its] brief would be helpful to or aid this court in deciding the instant appeal”) (emphasis in original). The briefs submitted by the Patent amici violate this Court’s rule allowing amicus briefs because they raise new issues and theories of law that have never previously been raised in this case—either before the trial court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, or by the State in its writ application to this Court. Because the State may not raise issues for the first time before this Court, neither can third parties whose appearance in the case as a “friend of the court” is solely by the Court’s indulgence. See, e.g., Perot v. Police Jury of Natchitoches Parish, 22 So.2d 666, 668 (La. 1945) (court could not consider issue raised by amicus “since the questions involved were not raised in the pleadings of the parties themselves nor presented by them to the district court”). Accordingly, the Court should strike the amicus briefs filed by the Patent amici. Even if considered, however, these amicus briefs are not helpful to the Court because the legal issues they raise are irrelevant and contradicted by the evidence and the law. The Patent amici essentially claim that Plaintiffs/Appellees (the “Plaintiffs”) are improperly attempting to collaterally attack patents issued by the United States. However, the Patent amici are wrong. It is hornbook law that navigable bodies of water, and the land beneath them, are not susceptible to conveyance by the United States. This time-honored law defeats the Patent amici’s argument at the outset. 1 ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES I. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE PATENT AMICI’S BRIEFS. The Patent amici argue in their briefs that the Plaintiffs’ action below is nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on the validity of “the United States Patents that were granted on land surrounding Catahoula Lake,” and the General Land Office (“GLO”) surveys upon which the patents were based. The Patent amici further argue that both state and federal law prohibit such attacks. The problem for the Patent amici is that neither the Plaintiffs nor the State ever attacked or otherwise questioned any of the United States patents or underlying GLO surveys. It is not surprising, then, that there is no evidence of any such “attack” in the record of this case. Beyond that, the State has never claimed in this case that the Plaintiffs (or anyone else for that matter) were attacking, questioning, or seeking to modify any United States patent or GLO survey. This Court has long adhered to the rule that its appellate review is restricted to issues that were

Load more