A. REMY FRANSEN, JR. and ALLAIN F. HARDIN vs THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL

TO BE PART OF THE CLASS

You do not have to take any further action, until further notified.  Any judgment, whether favorable or not, will include all members of the class who do not request exclusion from the class. 

TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF 

Any person who wants to be excluded from the class must submit a request for exclusion from the class. The opt out letter to the Class Counsel must be postmarked no later than April 1, 2019. 

In 2002, Remy Fransen and Allain Hardin filed a class action suit challenging a City of New Orleans ("City") Ordinance that imposed a 30% collection penalty and a 10% late payment penalty on past due ad valorem property taxes. Made defendants in the law suit was the City and its private collectors, the law firm Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP ("Linebarger") and United Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc. ("UGSL"), which received the 30% collection penalty/charge. 

The plaintiffs contended and ultimately the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed that the penalties/charges imposed were unconstitutional under the ad valorem tax provisions of the Louisiana Constitution. See the case Fransen v. City of New Orleans, 2008-0076, 976 So. 2d 1275 (La. 2/22/08).

Prior to the Supreme Court's holding the penalties were unconstitutional, Messrs. Fransen and Hardin had to fend off the City's assertion that the case had to be dismissed because tax and penalty challenges require payment under protest and filing suit within 30 days.[1] Despite being dismissed by the trial court, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and ultimately held, because of the way state law was written, that for a specific period of time, April 17, 2000 to March 5, 2002 there was no requirement for payment under protest and filing suit within 30 days.[2]

Subsequent to the payment under protest prescriptive challenge being reversed and the Louisiana Supreme Court's holding that the imposed penalties were unconstitutional, the claimants were required to establish that the suit was appropriate for class certification. In other words, class representatives had to be chosen, qualified, and certain criteria met, before those claimants could act on behalf of all persons or entities who paid the illegal charges from April 17, 2000 to March 5, 2002.   Prior to the hearing Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Monahan were substituted as proposed class representatives for Messrs. Fransen and Hardin. The Monahans were approved by the Court as class representatives. 

After a contentious hearing, the trial court ruled on November 24, 2015 that the claim could proceed as a class action.   The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the decision on March 28, 2018.[3] Plaintiffs sought review by the Louisiana Supreme Court because the trial and appellate courts declined to open the case to all persons who paid the penalties throughout the time it was imposed. The Court declined to hear the appeal. A Notice of Class Certification is now required to be published. 

While this case was pending, plaintiffs' counsel, Remy Fransen and Allain Hardin, also challenged a subsequent New Orleans ad valorem property tax penalty that imposed a 10% late payment and 9.5% collection charge. The City collected these penalties even after the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled such penalties unconstitutional. In Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 2012-2742 (La. 1/2814), 144 So. 3d 876, the Supreme Court again held the City of New Orleans lacked the authority to impose these penalties. The Court also confirmed that the payment under protest and 30 day to sue prescriptive provisions were applicable. 

The Notice advises all potential class members of the establishment of the class only for penalty payments made during the restricted period, April 17, 2000 to March 5, 2002.  Any other property tax payers, who paid the penalties outside of that time frame, have no rights in this class action. Any tax payers, who paid the penalty, during that time frame, are part of this class and do not have to take any further action to have their claim asserted on their behalf against the City and the private debt collectors. However, class members do have the option to opt out and file their own separate law suits with their own counsel, should they desire to do so. The Notice sets out what is required to do so.

Any persons or entities, who have specific questions regarding this class action, may fill out the "Contact Us" form to contact the class counsel.

The trial court in the future will consider and rule on whether the City of New Orleans, as well as Linebarger and UGSL, owe return of the illegal charges collected during the applicable time period. Linebarger and UGSL contend that they do not owe return of the penalties collected from tax payers by the City and paid to them. Class representatives filed a claim directly against them contending that as debt collectors they were obligated to meet certain legal criteria and if they did not do so then they had to return any sums that they were paid. The court must determine this issue in the future. The City of New Orleans has also filed a claim against Linebarger and UGSL contending that since the payments were made to those entities, as required by the Contract between the City and Linebarger/UGSL, those entities are obligated to return those sums to the City. Again, the court will decide this issue in the future. 

This website will be updated periodically to advise all potential claimants of the progress and their rights in this class action.

[1] See LSA-R.S. 47:21348 and New Orleans City Code '150-46.7. 

[2] Fransen v. City of New Orleans, 862 So. 2d 142 (La. App. 4 Ct. 11/19/03.

[3] Fransen v. City of New Orleans, 2016-0844 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/28/18).