The opinion
BARRETT & BARRETT, CPAS, * NO. 2022-CA-0727
APC AND ROBERT C.
BARRETT, JR., CPA *
COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
THE STATE BOARD OF *
CERTIFIED PUBLIC STATE OF LOUISIANA
ACCOUNTANTS OF *******
LOUISIANA
APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2021-09584, DIVISION “C”
Honorable Sidney H. Cates, Judge
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Dale
N. Atkins)
Robert C. Barrett, Jr.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
5329 Dijon Drive
Suite 106
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Bryan J. O’Neill
Albert J. Derbes IV
THE DERBES LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
3027 Ridgelake Drive
Metairie, LA 70002
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
MAY 19, 2023
PAB
TFL
DNA
This case stems from an administrative hearing involving the State Board of
Certified Public Accountants of Louisiana (the “Board”). Barrett & Barrett,
CPAS, APC and Robert C. Barrett, Jr., CPA (collectively the “Barretts”) appeal the
district court’s May 24, 2022 judgment on their petition for judicial review, which
sustained the Board’s exception of prescription, affirmed the Board’s final decision
and dismissed the Barretts’ appeal with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we
reverse the district court’s judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 15, 2021, the Barretts filed a Petition for Judicial Review of
an Order of the State Board of Certified Public Accountants of Louisiana (the
“Petition”) in Orleans Parish Civil District Court, which sought to have an adverse
decision of the Board reversed or, in the alternative, the case be remanded to the
Board for the taking of evidence. The Barretts alleged that on March 24, 2021, the
Board filed an administrative complaint against them and, in accordance with La.
R.S. 49:977.3(C), scheduled the administrative hearing (the “hearing”) for April
1
28, 2021.1 The Barretts contended that they filed a motion to continue the hearing
on April 23, 2021, in which they alleged that the Board failed to send supplemental
information and evidence fifteen days prior to the April 28, 2021 hearing date in
accordance with La. Admin. Code 46:XIX, § 1909(A).2 According to the Barretts,
their motion to continue was denied on April 26, 2021, and the Board proceeded to
hold the hearing in the Barretts’ absence. The Barretts alleged that the Board
rendered its final decision on May 26, 2021, and signed its notice of decision on
May 28, 2021. The Barretts further alleged that on June 7, 2021, they timely filed
a motion for rehearing or reconsideration (the “motion for rehearing”) and after
receipt of the October 14, 2021 denial of the motion for rehearing from the Board,
the Barretts timely filed their petition for judicial review. The Barretts urged the
1 La. R.S. 49:961(C)—which was redesignated without any substantive change as La. R.S.
49:977.3(C) by Acts 2022, No. 663, § 1, effective August 1, 2022—states:
C. No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful
unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency gives notice by
mail to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action, and the
licensee is given an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements
for the retention of the license. If the agency finds that public health, safety, or
welfare imperatively requires emergency action, and incorporates a finding to that
effect in its order, summary suspension of a license may be ordered pending
proceedings for revocation or other action. These proceedings shall be promptly
instituted and determined.
2 La. Admin. Code 46:XIX, § 1909 was amended in 2023. The amendment removed “within 30
days” from Subpart V to “provide more flexibility in decisions,” which is not pertinent to this
case. Subpart A provides:
A. The right to examine reports, if any, and evidence, referred to in R.S. 37:81.B,
may be exercised by the respondent or the respondent’s attorney by submitting a
written request to the board’s office.
1. A copy of all written material which will be presented as evidence at the
administrative hearing . . . shall be mailed to the person making such written
request . . . no later than fifteen working days prior to the date of hearing.
2. Failure to provide the information no later than fifteen working days prior to
the date of hearing shall be grounds for the board to consider a continuance of the
hearing if requested by the respondent . . . .
2
district court to reverse the decision of the Board, or in the alternative, remand the
matter to the Board for the taking of additional evidence.
On December 29, 2021, in response to the allegations contained in the
Barretts’ Petition, the Board filed an answer and affirmative defense and an
exception of prescription (the “exception”). In the exception, the Board contended
that the Barretts failed to request a motion for rehearing within ten days from the
day of entry of the final decision, which rendered the motion untimely and with no
legal effect. The Board maintained that the notice of final decision and a certified
copy of the Board’s final decision was emailed and mailed, via certified mail, to
the Barretts on May 28, 2021, and was received by them on June 2, 2021. The
Board argued that although the Barretts contended they faxed and sent via certified
mail a motion for rehearing to the Board on June 7, 2021, the Board did not receive
the fax nor did the Barretts submit a fax receipt of the alleged transmission. The
Board further argued that it did not receive the Barretts’ motion for rehearing until
June 9, 2021—two days past the time delay for filing a motion for rehearing in
administrative matters.3 Thus, the Board contended that because the Barretts’
motion for rehearing was untimely, they had thirty days from the mailing of notice
of final decision to file the Petition. In support, the Board attached to its exception
USPS tracking information that showed the notice of final decision and certified
copy of the Board’s decision was mailed via certified mail to the Barretts’ office
on May 28, 2021, and that the Barretts received the mail on June 2, 2021. The
Board also attached a copy of the signed certified mail green card for the notice of
final decision, which, according to the signature and delivery date, also showed
3 Pursuant to La. R.S. 49:959, a decision of the Board is subject to a rehearing “within ten days
from the date of its entry.” Moreover, “[p]arties shall be notified personally, by mail, or by
electronic means of any decision or order.” La. R.S. 49:958.
3
that the Barretts received the notice of final decision on June 2, 2021. In
conclusion, the Board urged that the Barretts’ appeal was prescribed and should be
dismissed. The exception was fixed for hearing on March 25, 2022.
On January 20, 2022, the district court set a briefing schedule on the merits
of the Barretts’ Petition. The district court ordered that the Barretts/Appellants’
brief was due on April 4, 2022, the Board/Appellee’s brief was due on April 20,
2022, and the Barretts/Appellants’ reply brief was due on April 27, 2022. Oral
argument on the Petition was scheduled on May 4, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. The Barretts
failed to file their Appellants’ brief as ordered by the district court; however, the
Board filed its Appellee’s brief on April 20, 2022.
On March 17, 2022, the Barretts filed a motion to continue the exception
hearing, which the district court granted. The exception was rescheduled to May 4,
2022, at 9:30 a.m., the same date and time the district had scheduled the oral
argument on the Petition. On the morning of the exception hearing and oral
argument on the Petition, the Barretts filed an opposition with exhibits to the
Board’s exception, along with a Motion to Reset Review on the Petition. Before the
hearing commenced, the district court addressed the Barretts’ late-filed pleadings,
stating: “I learned that I received an opposition five minutes ago that I haven’t
seen, as well as a motion to continue.” The Board orally opposed the motion to
continue, arguing that the Barretts have a habit of filing documents untimely. The
Board also requested that the district court forfeit the Barretts’ oral argument
because of their late-filed opposition. The district court, acknowledging that the
Barretts’ opposition was late, did not consider the Barretts’ opposition and
4
sustained the Board’s exception.4 The district court then allowed the Board to
present oral argument on the Petition. The Board argued that the Barretts failed to
present any evidence on the briefing of their Petition, and the final decision should
be affirmed.
Following the Board’s argument, the district court rendered judgment
granting the Board’s peremptory exception of prescription and affirming the
Board’s final decision against the Barretts. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Although the Barretts raise numerous assignments of error on appeal, our
review of the record finds that the issues before this court are: (1) whether the
district court erred in sustaining the Board’s peremptory exception of prescription;
and (2) whether the district court erred in affirming the Board’s final decision and
dismissing the Barretts’ appeal.5 We will address each issue in turn.
4 Although the district court did not consider the Barretts’ untimely opposition, it did not strike
the opposition from the record. This Court notes that the Barretts did not object to the district
court’s refusal to consider their opposition and exhibits nor have the Barretts raised this issue as
an assignment of error. As such, we will not consider the opposition nor the exhibits attached
thereto in our review of the issue before this Court.
5 The Barretts assign the following errors for review:
1. The State Board erred in not granting Barrett’s Motion for Continuance and
Reset Hearing filed on April 23, 2021 despite Barrett demonstrating good
cause for the continuance and the State Board’s violation of Title XIX, Sec.
1909.
2. The District Court erred in determining that the State Board denying Barrett’s
April 23, 2021 continuance request was not arbitrary, prejudicial or bias
despite supportable and sustainable by a preponderance of the evidence as
required by La. R.S. 49:964.
3. The District Court erred in granting the State Board’s Exception of
Prescription.
4. The State Board erred in not granting Barrett’s Motion for Rehearing or
Reconsideration as untimely filed on June 7, 2021.
5. The State Board erred in determining its Findings of Fact in its Final Decision
and Decision on Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration.
6. The State Board erred in determining its Conclusions of Law as Items
Numbers 17-25 in its Final Decision and Decision on Motion for
Rehearing/Reconsideration.
5
Prescription
“Prescription is a peremptory exception.” Felix v. Safeway Ins. Co., 15-
0701, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/16/15), 183 So.3d 627, 630 (citing La. C.C.P. art.
927 A(1)). “The peremptory exception of prescription is a ‘procedural device by
which a defendant may obtain dismissal of the action because it is time-barred.’”
Id. (citing Frank L. Maraist and Harry T. Lemmon, The Peremptory Exception, 1
LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW TREATISE: CIVIL PROCEDURE § 6.7 (1999); see also La.
C.C.P. art. 923). “The defendant must plead prescription.” Id. (citing La. C.C.P.
art. 927; La. C.C. art. 3452). “The prescriptive period applicable to an action is
determined by the character of the action disclosed in the pleadings.” Faubourg
Saint Charles, LLC v. Faubourg Saint Charles Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 18-0806,
p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/20/19), 265 So.3d 1153, 1157 (citing Born v. City of Slidell,
15-0136, p. 8 (La. 10/14/15), 180 So.3d 1227, 1232). The burden of proof is on
the party pleading prescription; however, if prescription is evident on the face of
the pleadings, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff to show the action has not
prescribed. Id. (citing Metairie III v. Poche’ Const., Inc., 10-0353, p. 4 (La. App. 4
Cir. 9/29/10), 49 So.3d 446, 449; Ivy Rest. New Orleans, LLC v. Torre, 16-0777, p.
5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/1/17), 211 So.3d 676, 680).
“Evidence may be introduced at the trial of a peremptory exception of
prescription.” Id. (citing Albe v. City of New Orleans, 14-0186, p. 6 (La. App. 4
Cir. 9/17/14), 150 So.3d 361, 366 (citing La. C.C.P. art. 931)). “When no evidence
7. The State Board erred in its Orders enumerated in the ORDERS section, page
7 and 8 of its Final Decision, and Decision on Motion for
Rehearing/Reconsideration.
8. The District Court erred in affirming the State Board Final Decision 2020-59;
that the finding of the State Board were not arbitrary and were supported by
the preponderance of the evidence presented.
6
is introduced at the trial of the peremptory exception for prescription, a de
novo standard is applied, and the judgment is reviewed to determine whether the
[district] court’s decision was legally correct.” Id. at pp. 4-5, 265 So.3d at
1157 (citing Wells Fargo Fin. Louisiana, Inc. v. Galloway, 17-0413, p. 8 (La. App.
4 Cir. 11/15/17), 231 So.3d 793, 800). “In this context, ‘the exception of
prescription must be decided on the facts alleged in the petition, which are
accepted as true.’” Id. at p. 5, 265 So.3d at 1157 (quoting Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt.
Servs., Inc., 07-2143, p. 6 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84, 88). “The law requires strict
construction of the prescription statutes ‘in favor of the claim that is said to be
extinguished.’” Id. (quoting Coston v. Seo, 12-0216, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/15/12),
99 So.3d 83, 88). “If evidence is introduced at the hearing on the peremptory
exception of prescription, the district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under
the manifest error-clearly wrong standard of review.” Petkovich v. Franklin
Homes, Inc., 21-0448, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/22/22), 349 So.3d 1042, 1048
(quoting Ames v. Ohle, 11-1540, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 97 So. 3d 386,
390-91).
In the case sub judice, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
govern the time delays at issue. Pursuant to La. R.S. 49:959(A),6 a decision of the
Board is subject to a rehearing “within ten days from the date of its entry.”
Moreover, “[p]arties shall be notified personally, by mail, or by electronic means
of any decision or order.” La. R.S. 49:958.7 A person may petition the district
court of the parish in which the agency is located for judicial review of an agency
6 Redesignated as La. R.S. 49:977.1(A) without any substantive change.
7 Redesignated as La. R.S. 49:977 without any substantive change.
7
action “within thirty days after the transmittal of notice of the final decision by the
agency or, if a rehearing is requested, within thirty days after the decision thereon.”
La. R.S. 49:964(B).8
The Board’s argument in favor of its exception of prescription is two-fold.
First, the Board asserts that the Barretts’ motion for rehearing on its final decision
was untimely based upon the time delays provided for under La. R.S. 49:959(A).
Second, the Board posits that because the Barretts’ petition for rehearing was
untimely, it was without legal effect. Therefore, the time delay mandated in La.
R.S. 49:964(B)9 should be counted from the Board’s mailing of its final decision
rather than the date of its notice of the denial of rehearing.10
Review of the facts alleged in the Barretts’ Petition indicate that the Petition
was timely filed on November 15, 2021, within thirty days after the Board issued
notice of denying the Barretts’ motion for rehearing on October 14, 2021. As such,
accepting these facts as true, our review hinges on whether the Board, as the party
pleading prescription, offered sufficient evidence to controvert the facts alleged in
the Petition to prove prescription and shift the burden back to the Barretts to prove
that their right to judicial review had not prescribed.
Turning to the evidence attached to the exception, the record reveals that the
Board attached documents showing when it mailed and when the Barretts received
8 Redesignated as La. R.S. 49:978.1(B) without any substantive change.
9 La. R.S. 49:964(B) provides:
Proceedings for review may be instituted by filing a petition in the district court of
the parish in which the agency is located within thirty days after the transmittal of
notice of the final decision by the agency or, if a rehearing is requested, within
thirty days after the decision thereon. Copies of the petition shall be served upon
the agency and all parties of record.
10 The Board attached to its Exception, the USPS tracking information which showed that it
mailed its final decision to the Barretts on May 28, 2021.
8
the notice of final decision. Conversely, the Board failed to attach any exhibits to
demonstrate when it received the Barretts’ application for rehearing or any other
documents to establish that the Barretts’ Petition was prescribed. It is clear from
the record that the Board did have a practice of date-stamping documents to show
when documents were received. Although not an issue in the exception, in its
memorandum in support of exception, the Board attached a date-stamped copy of
the envelope containing the motion to continue the hearing filed by the Barretts,
which indicated the date on which the document was received, to show that the
Barretts’ motion for continuance was not timely filed. Further, the attached copy
of the envelope containing the motion to continue was also stamped with the
postmark showing the date of mailing.11 The Board included nothing similar or
anything else in this matter to show when the motion for rehearing was received by
the Board. As such, the burden of proof never shifted to the Barretts to present
evidence that their right to judicial review was not extinguished by prescription.
Consequently, we find that the Board failed to meet its burden of proof to show
that the Barretts’ Petition was prescribed, and the district court erred when it
granted the exception of prescription.
Judicial Review
Next, the Barretts seek review of the district court’s May 24, 2022 judgment
affirming the Board’s final decision and dismissing their Petition. This Court has
previously explained the framework within which appeals are taken from
administrative proceedings:
A party aggrieved by a final agency decision in an adjudication
proceeding is entitled to have that decision reviewed initially by the
11 The Board also attached copies of several returned certified mail green cards that were date-
stamped “RECEIVED.”
9
district court of the parish in which the agency is located. La. R.S.
49:964(A)(1) and (B). The district court acts in the capacity of an
intermediate appellate court. A party aggrieved by the district court’s
decision is entitled to appeal to the appropriate appellate court as in
other civil cases. La. R.S. 49:965. When an appellate court reviews
the district court’s judgment, no deference is owed by the appellate
court to the district court’s fact findings or legal conclusions, “‘just as
no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual
findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. Thus, an appellate
court sitting in review of an administrative agency reviews the
findings and decision of the administrative agency and not the
decision of the district court.’” Bourgeois v. Louisiana State Racing
Comm’n, 10-0573, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/12/10), 51 So.3d 851, 856
(quoting Smith v. State, Dep’t of Health and Hospitals, 39,368, pp. 4-
5 (La. App. 2d Cir. 03/02/05), 895 So.2d 735, 739).
Nola Bourbon, LLC v. City of New Orleans, 19-0847, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir.
1/29/20), 290 So.3d 225, 227 (quoting DMK Acquisitions & Properties, L.L.C. v.
City of New Orleans, 13-0405, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/18/13), 124 So.3d 1157,
1163).
“The standard of appellate review of an administrative agency’s decision is
distinct from and narrower than that which applies to ordinary civil and criminal
appeals.” Id. “The exclusive grounds upon which an administrative agency’s
decision may be reversed or modified on appeal are enumerated in La. R.S.
49:964(G)[12] of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).” Id.
12 G. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings.
The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
(6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as determined
by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the court shall make its own
determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of evidence based upon
its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In
the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the
credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the witness
10
Immediately following the district court’s oral ruling on the Board’s
exception of prescription, the following exchange occurred regarding the merits of
the Petition:
COUNCIL FOR THE BOARD:
Yes, Your Honor. Can we also go forward with the actual
briefing on this thing? -because he’s -- Again, he didn’t file his brief.
He’s late on it. And we’d like the Court to rule prophylactically that
he has failed to present any evidence on the briefing on his -- on the
appeal. So we should -- the Court should affirm the decision below.
THE COURT:
Mr. Barrett?
COUSEL FOR BARRETT:
Well, Your Honor, the -- When the exception was granted for
the March 25 hearing, it was my understanding that today’s date was
going to be for this exception hearing and that the judicial review
would then be decided, and the ordering schedule, the schedule –
ordering schedule would be determined today. That was my
understanding from talking to Mrs. Davenport.
I had -- And that information is set out in my motion to reset
the hearing, Your Honor. So in regard to the -- So that’s, you know,
that’s all set out in the motion for rehearing. I just assumed that
today’s date was – today was gonna be for the exception, prescription
exception, and that from there, we would set, we would set the --
THE COURT:
My review of the record, though, reflects that nobody ever got
that pleading [motion to reset review], because you never served
them.
COUNSEL FOR BARRETT:
What was that, Your Honor?
THE COURT:
My research reflects that no one ever got that pleading [motion
to reset review] because you never served them.
COUSEL FOR BARRETT:
stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency’s
determination of credibility issues.
La. R.S. 49:964(G).
11
Well, the - -
THE COURT:
Counsel, you’re arguing the substance now, and we’re past that.
I’m going to note your objection for the record.
I’m going to maintain the exception of prescription, and I’m
going to deny the petition for judicial review.
We find that the district court did not adequately review the administrative record
prior to summarily dismissing the Barretts’ Petition. In fact, the appellate record is
devoid of the administrative proceedings, the final decision of the Board or any
evidence supporting or controverting the Board’s finding. As a result, we cannot
conduct our mandated de novo review of the Board’s final decision to determine if
the Board’s decision should be affirmed, reversed or modified. Accordingly, the
district court erred in affirming the Board’s final decision and dismissing the
Barretts’ Petition with prejudice.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment sustaining the
Board’s exception of prescription, affirming the Board’s final decision and
dismissing the Barretts’ appeal with prejudice is reversed and the matter is
remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
12