united states district court eastern …media.nola.com/politics/other/buisson roberts...

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BUISSON CREATIVE STRATEGIES, § CIVIL ACTION NO. L.L.C. AND GREGORY S. BUISSON § § Plaintiffs, § JUDGE § § VERSUS § MAGISTRATE § § CHRISTOPHER L. ROBERTS, § AND THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON. § § Defendants. § §

COMPLAINT

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Plaintiffs, Buisson Creative

Strategies, L.L.C. (referred to herein as “BCS”) and Gregory S. Buisson (referred to herein as

“Mr. Buisson” or collectively with BCS, as “Plaintiffs”) to file this Complaint (“Complaint”) and

respectfully aver as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff BCS is a Louisiana limited liability company with its principal place of

business in Metairie, Louisiana.

2. Plaintiff Mr. Buisson is an individual who resides in Metairie, Louisiana.

3. Defendant, the Parish of Jefferson is a governmental entity pursuant to Article 6,

§ 1, et seq. of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana of 1974, with its parish seat located in

Gretna, Louisiana (referred to herein as “Jefferson Parish”).

4. Defendant, Christopher L. Roberts, (referred to herein as “Roberts” or collectively

with Jefferson Parish as “Defendants”) is Councilman-At-Large for Division A and Chairman of

Case 2:15-cv-06272 Document 1 Filed 11/23/15 of 22

2

the Jefferson Parish Council (referred to herein as the “Council”), the legislative and policy

making body of Jefferson Parish pursuant to Article 2, Section 2.01(A) of its Charter.

5. Roberts, individually, is a resident of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

JURISDICTION

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a civil

action arising under the Constitution, laws, and treatises of the United States, as well as 28

U.S.C. § 1343 as Plaintiffs’ claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal law.

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants as all are domiciled in

this district. In addition, personal jurisdiction may be had pursuant to Rule 4(k) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

VENUE

8. As set forth above, all Defendants are located in this district.

9. Accordingly, venue is proper in this district pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c).

BUISSON CREATIVE STRATEGIES AND GREG BUISSON

10. BCS is a small, family-owned, business that has provided public relations,

advertising, marketing, event management, graphic design, and consulting services to

individuals, businesses, governmental entities, elected officials, and candidates for public office

throughout the State of Louisiana since 1999. BCS employs approximately eight persons.

11. BCS is owned and operated by Mr. Buisson and his wife, Cheryl, each having

greater than a five percent (5%) membership interest. They are its sole Members. Mr. Buisson

is its sole Manager. Mr. Buisson has extensive experience in media and communications,

previously serving as the Vice President and General Manager of WVUE-TV in New Orleans.

Mrs. Buisson also has extensive experience in media and communications, previously making

her career as on-air reporter for WWL television and radio stations in New Orleans.


3

12. Part of BCS’ business includes providing services to Jefferson Parish, as well as

entities receiving funds from Jefferson Parish.

JEFFERSON CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU

13. For instance, dating back to 1999, BCS has provided services to the Jefferson

Convention and Visitors Bureau (“JCVB”), a non-profit corporation that receives funds from

Jefferson Parish. Most recently, BCS entered into a Public Relations, Media Consulting & Event

Management Contract with the JCVB in January 2011 wherein BCS agreed to provide certain

“advertising, public relations, event management, and media consulting and placement” to the

JCVB to assist “in an ongoing public relations and marketing campaign.” (“JCVB Contract”).

The JCVB Contract gets renewed automatically unless terminated in accordance with its terms.

PATRONS OF LAFRENIERE PARK

14. In addition, BCS provides event management services to the Patrons of Lafreniere

Park for its annual Fourth of July celebration known as the “Uncle Sam Jam.”

15. Specifically, in 2014, and again in 2015, the Patrons of Lafreniere Park hired BCS

to “secure, advance and coordinate all talent agreements and artist rider requirements for

performances…coordinate ground transportation…sound checks…media/public relation

opportunities…[and] fulfill all artist rider requirements.”

16. In exchange, BCS accepts only a modest, standard commission and

reimbursement of expenses with respect to contracts with the artists. BCS otherwise waives any

and all management fees to assist the Patrons of Lafreniere Park with its efforts to provide July

4th entertainment to the citizens of Jefferson Parish.


4

PARISH OF JEFFERSON CARNIVAL/MARDI GRAS REVIEWING STANDS

17. BCS also has provided reviewing stands on the East Bank of Jefferson Parish

every Carnival season since 2012.

18. In 2011, BCS submitted a written bid proposal to Jefferson Parish in a response to

a public Request for Proposals to provide such reviewing stands during Carnival, and produce

and promote such costume contests on Mardi Gras day.

19. On motion of Interim Councilman Bill Townsend and Councilman Roberts, the

Council passed Resolution No. 118014 awarding the contract to BCS for a two year term;

namely, the 2012 and 2013 Carnival seasons. BCS and Jefferson Parish subsequently entered

into a Services Agreement dated February 15, 2012 (“Jefferson Parish Mardi Gras Services

Agreement”).

20. Jefferson Parish subsequently extended the Jefferson Parish Mardi Gras Services

Agreement to include the 2014 Carnival season. Specifically, on motion of Councilman Elton

Lagasse and Councilman Roberts, the Council passed Resolution No. 122094 authorizing the

First Amendment to the Jefferson Parish Mardi Gras Services Agreement, which was dated May

2014 (“First Amendment to Jefferson Parish Mardi Gras Services Agreement”).

21. In 2014, Jefferson Parish announced a public Request for Proposal to provide

reviewing stands on the East Bank of Jefferson Parish for the 2015 and 2016 Carnival seasons.

Again, BCS submitted a written bid proposal. And, again, on motion of the Council (this time,

of all Councilmembers present), it passed Resolution No. 124294 on January 28, 2015 awarding

the contract to BCS. BCS and Jefferson Parish subsequently entered into an Agreement, in

which Councilman Roberts represented the Parish of Jefferson and signed on its behalf

(“Jefferson Parish Mardi Gras 2015/2016 Agreement”)


5

22. For the 2015 Carnival season, BCS performed its obligations under the Jefferson

Parish Mardi Gras 2015/2016 Agreement. BCS intends to perform its obligations for the 2016

Carnival season as well.

CONSULTING SERVICES TO CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE

23. Part of BCS’ business also includes providing consulting services to candidates

for public office, as one of the state’s leading media and public relations firms. In fact, earlier

this year, BCS won multiple national awards from Campaigns & Elections magazine, as well as

the American Association of Political Consultants (“AAPC”) for effective and creative political

advertising and communications. BCS also adheres to the AAPC Code of Professional Ethics, to

which the AAPC requires its members to reaffirm their commitment annually, in writing.

24. In this regard, BCS has and does represent candidates for public office at the state,

parish, and local levels, and for a wide array of offices, from municipal to parish to state,

amongst others. This includes candidates for public office in Jefferson Parish.

25. Also in this regard, these consulting services provided to candidates for public

office include, but are not limited to, advices regarding campaign strategy, associations, media,

messages, endorsements, appearances, and the like.

26. BCS typically enters into written contracts with these candidates for public office,

which provide for compensation to be paid in the forms of retainers, commissions, and/or

bonuses.

FALL 2015 PRIMARY ELECTION

27. For the Fall 2015 primary election, BCS provided consulting services to several

candidates for public office. The primary election occurred on Saturday, October 24, 2015 (“Fall

2015 Primary Election”).


6

28. In particular, for purposes relevant to the facts made the basis of this Complaint,

BCS provided consulting services to Louis Congemi (“Congemi”), a candidate for the public

office of Jefferson Council, At-Large, Division A (“Congemi Campaign”), for which a contract

was entered and compensation paid.

29. Congemi ran against the incumbent, Roberts, both Republicans (“Congemi-

Roberts Race”).1 Even casual observers could see the Congemi-Roberts Race was hotly

contested and highly controversial.

30. No less than four lawsuits were filed in the 24th Judicial District Court for the

Parish of Jefferson arising from the Congemi-Roberts Race including (1) Stephen M. Petit, Jr. v.

Christopher Lorell Roberts, et al, No. 753-547 (“Petit Lawsuit”); (2) Connie S. Montgomery v.

Christopher Lorell Roberts, et al, No. 753-660; (3) Connie S. Montgomery v. Christopher Lorell

Roberts, et al, No. 753-661 (collectively with (2), the “Montgomery Lawsuits”); and (4)

Christopher L. Roberts v. Louis Congemi, No. 754-226 (“Roberts Lawsuit”).

31. The Petit and Montgomery Lawsuits challenged the candidacy of Roberts,

basically alleging that Roberts did not qualify for the office sought; did not file federal income

tax returns for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013; and did not file an extension for his 2014

federal income tax return.

32. The Roberts Lawsuit sought a temporary restraining order against Congemi to

restrain the continued airing of “two television and Facebook social media commercials”

regarding Roberts’ alleged failure to file federal income tax returns for 2010 through 2014. 2

1 Another candidate, Jimmy Lawson, ran as a Democrat against both Congemi and Roberts. 2 See Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, ¶ III-IV.


7

33. Roberts’ alleged failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 2010

through 2014 played out in the print, radio, social, and television media. This included media

done on behalf of the Congemi Campaign by BCS.

34. For example, but not by way of limitation, on behalf of the Congemi Campaign,

BCS created, produced, and caused to be broadcast on WWL 870 AM, WRNO 99.5 FM, WNOE

101.1 FM, WLMG 101.9 FM, and WWL 105.3 FM a radio spot called “Real Politicians of

Genius.”3

35. Also by example, but not by way of limitation, on behalf of the Congemi

Campaign, BCS created, produced, and caused to be broadcast on WDSU, WGNO, WVUE,

WWL, and various networks on Cox cable a television commercial called “Halloween.”4

3 The contents of the radio spot may aid the Court in understanding the tenor, so to speak, of the Congemi-Roberts Race and, therefore, BCS and Buisson provide the following transcript: Announcer: Louie Congemi Presents Real Politician of Genius. Singer: Real Politician of Genius Announcer: Here’s to you Chris Roberts. “Mr. Stick It To the Man” Man. You didn’t pay your taxes for five years straight. Singer: Oh that seems so crooked Announcer: Yes Councilman Chris, you are paid by taxpayers – but “taxes … you don’t pay no stinkin’ taxes.” Singer: What was he thinking? Announcer: We’ve got your number Chris Roberts. It’s Zero. Zero tax payments in 2010, ‘11, ‘12, ‘13 and ‘14 Singer: You told it to the judge. Announcer: Tax paying voters hate tax cheats. So Mr. Stick to Uncle Sam man, calculators may cramp your hand, but voters are about to cramp your style. Singer: Cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat Announcer: So sit back Mr. “I Need An Extension” Roberts, and get ready for voters to make you pay. Congemi: Paid for by Louie Congemi for Council and I absolutely approve this message. 4 The contents of the television commercial may aid the Court in understanding the tenor of the Congemi-Roberts Race and, therefore, BCS and Buisson provide the following transcript: KIDS: Trick or treat (muffled) MOM: Well hello, who are you? BOY IN SUIT: I’m Chris Roberts! BOY IN PATRIOTIC COSTUME (Uncle Sam): And I’m the tax man and I want you! BOY IN $100 BILL COSTUME (Tax Lien): And, I’m his tax lien GIRL IN ICE CREAM COSTUME/BOY IN HOT DOG COSTUME: We’re his former business partners. And he stiffed us too. BOY IN SUIT: OK. Just hand over the candy. ANNOUNCER: Don’t be tricked by Chris Roberts BOY IN SUIT: No, no, no, I’ll take it all. I’ll share later.


8

36. In addition, by example, but not by way of limitation, BCS assisted with

populating the content of a Facebook page; and wrote, printed, and mailed various flyers, to the

voters of Jefferson Parish on behalf of Congemi Campaign.

37. To say that these print, radio, social, and television media created by BCS for the

Congemi Campaign did not sit well with Roberts would be an understatement, as became

apparent in state courts, in Roberts’ own campaign media against Congemi, during the campaign,

on election night, and thereafter.

38. Even before the day of the Fall 2015 Primary Election, Roberts started his crusade

of retaliation against BCS and Mr. Buisson, ultimately causing a candidate forum sponsored by

the JCVB to be canceled, arguably in violation of its, the candidates’, and the citizens’ First

Amendment rights. In this regard, weeks before the Fall 2015 Primary Election – and perhaps

not coincidentally, around the time of the Petit and Montgomery Lawsuits – Roberts asked the

JCVB (a non-profit corporation) to produce information and documents regarding its contracts

and relationship with BCS and Mr. Buisson. Roberts further compelled its President & CEO to

answer questions focusing on BCS and Mr. Buisson. The JCVB ultimately canceled the

candidate forum.

39. On the day of the Fall 2015 Primary Election – Saturday, October 24th – Roberts’

narrowly retained his seat, winning just 50.18% of the vote. Congemi received 25.13% of the

vote. Lawson received 24.68% of the vote.5

40. In the wee hours of the next morning – Sunday, October 25th, at approximately 2

am – Roberts called Mr. Buisson to gloat about his win and to threaten retaliation, yelling

ALL KIDS (in disgust): Ugghhh…… come on 5 According to the Jefferson Parish Election Results posted by the Clerk of Court of Jefferson Parish, Roberts received 42,057 votes; Congemi received 21,064 votes; and Lawson received 20,683 votes.


9

vulgarities and threats. Around the same time, Roberts sent Mr. Buisson a text message, further

venting his anger and threatening his revenge by saying “We’re coming. Lawyer up.”

41. In addition, after the Fall 2015 Primary Election, Roberts contacted other

candidates running for public office in the general election held on November 21st and either

attempted to dissuade them from hiring BCS or, if they had hired BCS already, told them they

would lose the election.

JEFFERSON PARISH ORDINANCE 25045

42. Not being satisfied with the spoils of victory, or mere temper tantrums, Roberts

upped the ante, and used and overextended, his legislative authority on the Council to draft,

revise, and enact (or cause to be) an ordinance intended to target BCS and Mr. Buisson. In

addition, Roberts crafted Ordinance No. 25045 to terminate BCS’ long-standing contracts with

the JCVB, with the Patrons of Lafreniere Park for Uncle Sam Jam, and with Jefferson Parish to

provide Carnival reviewing stands, as well as to ensure that neither BCS nor any entity affiliated

with Mr. Buisson would be eligible for future contracts for quite some time. A copy of

Ordinance No. 25045 accompanies this Complaint as Exhibit “A” and is incorporated herein by

reference.

43. Even so, let’s read the words on this page, so to speak. On November 4, 2015, on

the motion of Roberts, seconded by Elton Lagasse6, the Council passed Ordinance No. 25045

with a vote of five to two.7

44. Summary No. 24350 describes Ordinance No. 25045 to be,

An ordinance to amend the Sections of the Code of Ordinances of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana that pertain to cooperative endeavor agreements, professional

6 Notably, in the Fall 2015 Primary Election, Lagasse ran against, and lost to, a candidate for Parish President for whose campaign BCS provided management and consulting services. 7 Councilpersons Ricky Templet, Mark Spears, Roberts, Lagasse, and Cynthia Lee-Sheng voted for Ordinance No. 25045. Councilpersons Paul Johnston and Ben Zahn voted against Ordinance No. 25045. No one abstained.


10

services contracts and request for proposal contracts, in order to include a prohibition on contracting with any individual or business that is involved in the management or consulting of political campaigns, and to provide for other related matters. (Parishwide). (emphasis added) 45. Ordinance No. 25045 adds the following prohibition to Jefferson Parish’s Code of

Ordinances on Uniform Purchasing Procedures:

Sec. 2-895.1 - Prohibition. No person or firm or person owning five percent (5%) or more of a firm shall be awarded a contract with Jefferson Parish under the provisions of Section 2-895 herein if said person or firm is receiving compensation or has received compensation (including any commissions) for the management or consulting of political campaigns for a candidate or candidates for the Jefferson Parish Council or for the Jefferson Parish President during the election cycle occurring at the time in which the contract is to be awarded. For purposes of this section, “election cycle” shall mean that period beginning one year prior to the primary election date for the office for which the candidate is running and ending on the last day of the term of the office for which the candidate was running. Should a person or firm or person owning five percent (5%) or more of a firm begin receiving compensation (including any commissions) for the management or consulting of political campaigns for a candidate or candidates for the Jefferson Parish Council or for the office of the Jefferson Parish President after being awarded a contract with Jefferson Parish under the provisions of Section 2-895, said compensation shall be grounds for the immediate termination of the person or firm’s contract with the Parish.

46. Ordinance No. 25045 also adds the following prohibition to Jefferson Parish’s

Code of Ordinances’ section on Non-Governmental Organizations:

Sec. 2-925.2 - Prohibition. A. No person or firm or person owning five percent (5%) or more of a firm shall be awarded a contract with Jefferson Parish if said person or firm is receiving compensation or has received compensation (including any commissions) for the management or consulting of political campaigns for a candidate or candidates for the Jefferson Parish Council or for the Jefferson Parish President during the election cycle occurring at the time in which the contract is to be awarded. For purposes of this section, “election cycle” shall mean that period beginning one year prior to the primary election date for the office for which the candidate is running and ending on the last day of the term of the office for which the candidate was running. Should a person or firm or person owning five


11

percent (5%) or more of a firm begin receiving compensation (including any commissions) for the management or consulting of political campaigns for a candidate or candidates for the Jefferson Parish Council or for the office of the Jefferson Parish President after being awarded a contract with Jefferson Parish, said compensation shall be grounds for the immediate termination of the person or firm’s contract with the Parish. B. No Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) shall use funds granted to said NGO by Jefferson Parish or by an agency or district governed by Jefferson Parish to contract with a person or firm or person owning five percent (5%) or more of a firm which is receiving compensation (including any commissions) for the management or consulting of political campaigns for a candidate or candidates for the Jefferson Parish Council or for the office of the Jefferson Parish President during the election cycle occurring at the time in which the contract is to be awarded.

47. Lastly, Ordinance No. 25045 adds a similar prohibition to Jefferson Parish’s Code

of Ordinances on Selection of Persons for Professional Services:

Sec. 2-933.5 - Prohibition. No person or firm or person owning five percent (5%) or more of a firm shall be awarded a contract to provide professional services with Jefferson Parish if said person or firm is receiving compensation or has received compensation (including any commissions) for the management or consulting of political campaigns for a candidate or candidates for the Jefferson Parish Council or for the Jefferson Parish President during the election cycle occurring at the time in which the contract is to be awarded. For purposes of this section, “election cycle” shall mean that period beginning one year prior to the primary election date for the office for which the candidate is running and ending on the last day of the term of the office for which the candidate was running. Should a person or firm or person owning five percent (5%) or more of a firm begin receiving compensation (including any commissions) for management or consulting of political campaigns for a candidate or candidates for the Jefferson Parish Council or for the office of the Jefferson Parish President after being awarded a contract with Jefferson Parish to provide professional services, said compensation shall be grounds for the immediate termination of the person or firm’s contract with the Parish.

48. In summary, and in pertinent part, Ordinance No. 25045 provides that any person

or firm who has “received compensation” for the “management or consulting of political

campaigns” for a candidate for the Council or for Jefferson Parish President during an “election


12

cycle” cannot be awarded contracts with Jefferson Parish or Jefferson Parish funded

organizations, regardless of whether such candidate wins or loses. This language

unconstitutionally distinguishes between those who are paid and who are not, applies whether the

candidate wins or loses; focuses solely on First Amendment and freedom of

association/affiliation activities associated with the “management or consulting of political

campaigns,” as opposed to other activities; and singles-out paid managers/consultants of political

campaigns in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

49. Ordinance No. 25045 further states that such ineligibility spans an “election

cycle,” which is unconstitutionally and broadly defined as “one year prior to the primary election

date for which the candidate is running and ending on the last day of the term of the office for

which the candidate was running.” For example, for the Fall 2015 Primary Election, the

“election cycle” for the Council and Jefferson Parish President (who each have four year terms)

runs from approximately October 24, 2014 to January 6, 2020.

50. Equally important, and unconstitutional, Ordinance No. 25045 allows the

“immediate termination” of prohibited contracts, without Due Process, and in violation of the

Contracts Clause. Given BCS’ receipt of compensation for the management and consulting of

the Congemi Campaign for Council, its contracts with the JCVB, the Patrons of Lafreniere Park,

and Jefferson Parish are subject to immediate termination, and/or non-renewal, under Ordinance

No. 25045. Because Ordinance No. 25045 was not adopted until after the Fall 2015 Primary

Election, neither BCS nor Mr. Buisson knew, or should have known, that their constitutionally

protected management and consulting of political campaigns could render them ineligible until

2020 for contracts with Jefferson Parish and funded organizations.


13

51. Given the constitutional infirmities of Ordinance No. 25045, BCS and Mr.

Buisson seek relief from this Court in the form of a judgment declaring that Ordinance No.

25045 violates the United States Constitution; most notably, the Contracts Clause, the Due

Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the protections of the First Amendment, and the

prohibition against Bills of Attainder. BCS and Mr. Buisson also seek a permanent injunction

against Jefferson Parish enjoining the enforcement of Ordinance No. 25045.

ROBERTS’ ACTIONS

52. In addition, BCS and Mr. Buisson seek damages and further redress from Roberts

for his knowing and intentional violation of the constitutional rights of BCS and Mr. Buisson

while acting under the color of law, and otherwise.

53. BCS and Mr. Buisson contend Roberts drafted, revised, and enacted (or caused to

be) Ordinance No. 25045 to target specifically, and retaliate against, BCS and Mr. Buisson for

their management of and consulting with the Congemi Campaign during the Fall 2015 Primary

Election.

54. BCS and Mr. Buisson further contend that, before enactment and during the

drafting process, Ordinance No. 25045 garnered the nickname “the Buisson Ordinance” because

it so clearly targeted BCS and Mr. Buisson.

55. Before enactment and during the drafting process, the Parish Attorney expressed

concern to Roberts, the Council, and others that Ordinance No. 25045 “singling out one type of

vendor for exclusion rather than all vendors presents constitutional challenges (Equal

Protection).”

56. Before enactment and during the drafting process, the Parish Attorney expressed

concern to Roberts, the Council, and others that “[c]learly we can prohibit Parish funds from


14

being spent for political purposes. However, banning vendors who are separately participating in

the political process, or whose subs do so, raises constitutional issues (1st Amendment).”

57. BCS and Mr. Buisson contend, upon information and belief, that the Parish

Attorney expressed other, graver constitutional concerns about earlier drafts of Ordinance No.

25045, which were purposefully cleaned up to attempt to pass constitutional muster.

58. BCS and Mr. Buisson contend, upon information and belief, that drafts of

Ordinance No. 25045 were provided to a few, select, private lawyers who both have Parish-

funded contracts and provide paid legal and campaign finance advice to political campaigns in

Jefferson Parish. These private lawyers’ revised and/or edited the drafts to ensure the enacted

ordinance would not jeopardize their business or political activities with Jefferson Parish. The

private lawyers’ revisions were incorporated into Ordinance No. 25045 as enacted.

59. BCS and Mr. Buisson contend, upon information and belief, that Ordinance No.

25045 may apply only to them, as there are few, if any, firms and/or persons whose contracts

could succumb to its prohibitions.

60. At the November 4, 2015 East Bank Council meeting – at which the Council

considered, debated, and adopted Ordinance No. 25045, and at which the Parish Attorney

repeatedly advised the Council of its unconstitutionalities – both the Council and the Parish

Attorney referenced, on the record, no less than six times, the one, particular vendor to whom

Ordinance No. 25045 intended to apply; namely, BCS, and Mr. Buisson.

61. In light of Roberts’ blatant and pernicious misuse of his office and the authority

given to him by the Charter and voters of Jefferson Parish, Plaintiffs bring this action to strike

down Roberts’ retaliatory legislation, as well as to seek other redress.


15

COUNT I – CONTRACTS CLAUSE

62. Plaintiffs re-aver and incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as

though fully set forth herein.

63. Ordinance No. 25045, both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs, violates the

provision of the United States Constitution known as the “contracts clause,” which states that

“[n]o State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of contracts…” U.S. Const. Art. I §

10, cl. 1.

64. The immediate termination of contracts pursuant to Ordinance 25045

substantially impairs the contractual relationships between BCS and JCVB, BCS and the Patrons

of Lafreniere Park, and BCS and Jefferson Parish.

65. Jefferson Parish has no justification for the impairment that Ordinance No. 25045

imposes on the contractual relationships cited above, and such law is entirely unnecessary.

66. Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare Ordinance No. 25045

unconstitutional, and permanently enjoin Jefferson Parish from enforcing Ordinance No. 25045.

COUNT II – FIRST AMENDMENT




First Amendment rights of both BCS and Mr. Buisson by restricting and/or burdening their

exercise of political support for candidates for public office.

69. Particularly, Ordinance No. 25045 burdens and dis-incentivizes Plaintiffs from

managing and/or consulting political campaigns.


16

70. Given Plaintiffs’ expertise, Ordinance No. 25045 particularly burdens Plaintiffs’

assisting political candidates of their choosing in crafting messages, advertisements, and other

communications with the electorate.

71. In addition, Ordinance No. 25045 is specifically directed at Plaintiffs and singles

out Plaintiffs for dis-favorable treatment based on the content of Plaintiffs’ political activities.

72. Ordinance No. 25045 burdens such political speech, political association, and the

expression of political allegiance by penalizing BCS and Mr. Buisson in the form of ineligibility

for future Parish-funded contracts and immediate termination of any existing Parish-funded

contracts.


unconstitutional and permanently enjoin Jefferson Parish from enforcing Ordinance No. 25045.

COUNT III – EQUAL PROTECTION




rights of both BCS and Mr. Buisson to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth

Amendment.

76. Particularly, Ordinance No. 25045 treats Plaintiffs differently than other

similarly-situated persons and/or entities. For example, Ordinance No. 25045 singles out those

who are hired to provide “management or consulting of political campaigns,” and particularly

burdens those individuals and firms in obtaining and retaining Parish-funded contracts.

Ordinance No. 25045, however, does not place similar burdens on those who provide similar or

other services to political campaigns. For instance, Ordinance No. 25045 does not apply to


17

unpaid managers or consultants, paid or unpaid campaign fundraisers, attorneys, accountants,

speech writers, caterers, security providers, event planners and many others who assist

campaigns on a paid and unpaid basis.

77. Ordinance No. 25045 burdens Plaintiffs, but does not burden those listed above,

and has no overriding, compelling, or legitimate interest related to such a differing treatment.



COUNT IV – DUE PROCESS




rights of both BCS and Mr. Buisson under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

81. Ordinance No. 25045 deprives Plaintiffs of both a property and liberty interests in

performing BCS’ current Parish-funded contracts, and obtaining new Parish-funded contracts.

Specifically, Ordinance No. 25045 terminates BCS’ Parish-funded contracts without notice -

i.e., Plaintiffs’ had no notice that their pre-Ordinance political activities would bring about the

termination of BCS’ contracts and period of long, automatic ineligibility for new contracts.

82. Ordinance No. 25045 terminates BCS’ Parish-funded contracts without an

opportunity to be heard (i.e., no hearing will be conducted under Ordinance No. 25045 to

determine whether Plaintiffs’ contracts will be terminated).


18

83. Instead, Ordinance No. 25045 immediately terminates BCS’ Parish-funded

contracts, and renders BCS and Mr. Buisson immediately ineligible for all future Parish contracts

until January 2020.



COUNT V – BILL OF ATTAINDER

85. Plaintiff re-aver and incorporate the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as



United States Constitution’s prohibition on bills of attainder. U.S. Const. art I, § 9, cl. 3 (“No

Bills of Attainder… shall be passed.”)

87. Ordinance No. 25045 pertains to an easily-ascertainable individual and that

individual’s firm – BCS and Mr. Buisson.

88. Ordinance No. 25045 intends to inflict punishment on BCS and Mr. Buisson

without a judicial trial.

89. Ordinance No. 25045 punishes BCS and Mr. Buisson by legislatively barring

them from participating in Parish-funded contracts.

90. Ordinance No. 25045 also punishes Plaintiffs by providing for the immediate

cancellation of any Parish-funded contracts held by Plaintiffs.

91. Ordinance No. 25045 seeks to punish Plaintiffs solely for BCS’ activities in the

2015 election and, in fact, such punishment is the Ordinance’s sole purpose.

92. Ordinance No. 25045 cannot reasonably be said to further non-punitive goals,

given the nonsensical distinctions it makes between paid and unpaid political consultants, and the


19

manner in which it singles out paid political consulting for punishment but does not apply to

other paid or unpaid campaign assistance.

93. There are many less burdensome alternatives by which the Council may have

achieved any non-punitive objective they may have.



COUNT VI – 42 U.S.C. § 1983



96. Per the facts presented above, Roberts, under color of the authority vested in him

by the Jefferson Parish Charter and other applicable laws, subjected Plaintiffs or caused Plaintiffs

to be subjected to a deprivation of their rights under the United States Constitution.

97. Roberts deprived Plaintiffs of their rights by retaliating against them for

exercising their rights to free speech and political association.

98. Particularly, Roberts used his authority to require the JCVB to appear before the

Council and subjected the JCVB to an inquiry regarding its practices, contracts, and other

business relative to BCS and Mr. Buisson. Such actions were purely administrative in nature.

Roberts intended this action to intimidate the JCVB into ceasing its business relationship with

BCS and Mr. Buisson.

99. Roberts also used the authority vested in him to threaten official reprisal by the

Council against those who did business with Plaintiffs as alleged above.

100. Moreover, Roberts used his authority to threaten official reprisal against BCS and

Mr. Buisson as alleged above.


20

101. Roberts then took administrative action against Plaintiffs by enacting a provision

that would cancel BCS’ contracts and make BCS ineligible for future contracts with Jefferson

Parish.

102. Roberts’ attempted to thinly-veil this administrative action by labeling it as an

ordinance. However, Roberts’ comments, the Council’s public comments, and the Parish

Attorney’s comments and advices about Ordinance No. 25045 clearly show that it was composed

to terminate the ability of Plaintiffs to bid for and/or retain contracts with Jefferson Parish and/or

others who receive funds from Jefferson Parish.

103. Moreover, the language of Ordinance No. 25045 reveals it to be administrative as

it is narrowly drawn to attempt to apply only to BCS and Mr. Buisson.

104. Roberts is not entitled to any form of immunity for his willful and intentional

misuse of his authority. Roberts’ actions were administrative in nature, blatantly targeted to

harm BCS and Mr. Buisson, and designed to violate their clearly-established constitutional

rights.

105. Roberts particularly knew that his actions relating to Ordinance No. 25045

violated BCS’ and Mr. Buisson’s constitutional rights, having been so advised by the Parish

Attorney in writing and at the November 4, 2015 meeting of the Council, when adopted.

106. In fact, Roberts’ repeated comment to “lawyer up” shows his intentional

retaliation in an illegal manner so as to force BCS and Mr. Buisson to retain counsel and bring

legal action.

107. All of Roberts’ actions were taken in retaliation for BCS’ and Mr. Buisson’s

political activities and, thereby, deprived them of their constitutional rights. Roberts was advised


21

by the Parish Attorney that his actions violated these constitutional rights, but nonetheless took

such actions.

108. Roberts also deprived Plaintiffs of their rights to equal protection under law by

deliberately crafting Ordinance No. 25045 to affect only Plaintiffs and not those similarly-

situated without any legitimate interest in such disparate treatment. Roberts’ was advised by the

Parish Attorney that his actions violated these constitutional rights, but nonetheless took such

actions.

109. Roberts also deprived Plaintiffs of their rights to due process, by taking

administrative actions to terminate BCS’ contracts without notice or hearing via Ordinance No.

25045.

110. Roberts also deprived Plaintiffs of their protections under the contracts clause by

taking administrative actions to unilaterally and substantially impair BCS’ contracts with

Jefferson Parish and others who receive funds from Jefferson Parish.

111. Roberts also deprived Plaintiffs of their protections under the United States

Constitution’s prohibition on bills of attainder.

112. Roberts singled Plaintiffs out for particular legislative punishment as alleged

above.

113. Plaintiffs were injured by such constitutional deprivations because BCS’ contracts

were immediately subjected to terminate upon Ordinance No. 25045 effective date, Plaintiffs

were immediately made ineligible for contracts with Jefferson Parish, and Plaintiffs were forced

to file suit to seek redress.

114. Plaintiffs were also injured by Roberts’ actions to intimidate the JCVB and others

to cease their business relationship with the Plaintiffs.


22

115. Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask this Court to award consequential, nominal and

punitive damages, if provided by law, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and/or interest, and all

other just and equitable relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

WHEREFORE, after due proceedings are had, Plaintiffs Buisson Creative Strategies,

L.L.C. and Gregory S. Buisson, pray that their Complaint be deemed good and sufficient; that

there be judgment in its favor and against Defendants:

(i) that Ordinance No. 25045 be declared unconstitutional;

(ii) that Jefferson Parish be permanently enjoined from enforcing Ordinance No.

25045;

(iii) that Christopher L. Roberts be ordered to pay damages to Plaintiffs in an amount

to be determined at trial; and

(iii) for any and all other just and equitable relief to which the Plaintiffs may be

entitled.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Monique Lafontaine Monique M. Lafontaine, T.A. (#24557) 700 Metairie Lawn Drive Metairie, Louisiana 70001 Telephone: 504-669-5385 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs, Buisson Creative Strategies, L.L.C. and Gregory S. Buisson


united states district court eastern …media.nola.com/politics/other/buisson roberts...

Documents