Case 1:05-cv-01121-DDD-CMH Document 406 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA CIVIL ACTION NO. CV05-1121A

VERSUS JUDGE DEE D. DRELL

CLECO CORPORATION, ET AL. MAG. JUDGE C. MICHAEL HILL

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF
MOTION TO SEGREGATE FUNDS

NOW COMES, defendant-in-intervention, the City of Alexandria (“City”), which herein

files its memorandum in opposition to a motion styled as one to segregate funds filed by

intervenor, Bridgett Brown, (“Brown”), in the referenced matter. In short, Brown’s motion to

segregate funds is filed without so much as a modicum of basis in law or fact and should be

denied.

Brown’s motion which is comprised of a mere eight paragraphs fails to cite any

jurisprudential or statutory support for the extraordinary relief she is seeking. Because Brown

failed to file a memorandum in support of her motion to segregate funds, the City has no further

indication of the basis of Brown’s claim and must presume that Brown relies solely on the

loosely stated assertions in the motion.

Brown’s motion to segregate funds is effectively a preemptive request for a writ of

attachment and the seizure of City funds prior to success on the merits. Not only is Brown short

of success on the merits, but she has not established a prima facie case that she is entitled to any

recovery from the City and has made no indication of an ability to do so. She has wholly failed

1 917847.1
 Case 1:05-cv-01121-DDD-CMH Document 406 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 5

to suggest any security interest or other right to entitle her to this prejudgment relief. Thus, there

is no viable basis, under any theory of law, for the premature motion to segregate funds, and

Brown is not entitled to the relief sought.1

Brown’s motion, by which she seeks to encumber and restrain public funds, relies upon a

series of unsupported and refuted facts which, under no circumstances, entitle her to the relief

sought. First, Brown’s central basis for the motion to segregate funds is the percent (10%) she

claims she is owed under her contingency fee contract with the City. Based on the contract, she

claims to be entitled to a special lien and/or privilege. However, Brown’s contingency fee

contract was terminated by the City. Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill issued a report and

recommendation on March 11, 2010 (the “Report”) recognizing the termination of Brown’s

contract.2 Although, this Court has not yet ruled with regard to the Report, Brown’s overt

reliance on the terminated contract without even mentioning the Report borders on bad faith and

is indicative of the entire lack of support for Brown’s motion to segregate funds.

Second, Brown avers that the City is negotiating payment of fees to consultants and

attorneys fees during the Cleco litigation. Brown has no knowledge of the current litigation or

the payment of any attorneys and/or consultants in this case because she has been terminated for

more than two years. More importantly, the payments made to consultants and other counsel are

immaterial to any amounts owed to Brown. Because Brown’s contingency fee contract was

terminated, she is limited in recovery to quantum meruit.

Third, Brown avers that the City is contemplating a cash rebate to rate payers out of

settlement funds. Again, Brown has been uninvolved with this matter for more than two years

and has no knowledge of what the City is contemplating. Even so, it is ironic Brown would be

1
Brown’s motion to segregate funds is not warranted by existing law and thus is a violation of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2).
2
See Report and Recommendation of Judge C. Michael Hill at Record Doc. 382.

2 917847.1
 Case 1:05-cv-01121-DDD-CMH Document 406 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 5

fearful of a rebate to the citizens of the City -- a City she claimed she represented.3

Notwithstanding, any rebate would have no effect on the potential recovery Brown may be

entitled to on a quantum meruit basis.

Each and every factual allegation in Brown’s motion is either incorrect or factually

irrelevant. However, even if Brown’s allegations were supportable, Brown is not entitled to the

relief sought under any viable theory of Louisiana law. There is neither jurisprudence nor statute

which permits a plaintiff-in-intervention to secure a writ of attachment for the full amount of the

relief sought prior to judgment on the merits and without even showing of a likelihood of

success. Brown’s motion to segregate funds is baseless, unsupportable, and should be denied.

3
At this time, there has been no consideration of a rebate by the City utility.

3 917847.1
 Case 1:05-cv-01121-DDD-CMH Document 406 Filed 06/01/10 Page 4 of 5

WHEREFORE, the City of Alexandria prays that after all necessary considerations,

Brown’s motion to segregate funds be denied.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Charles E. Johnson, Jr. (#22807)

Alainna Reneé Mire (#29351)
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA
P.O. Box 71
Alexandria, LA 71309-0071
Telephone: 318-449-5015
Fax: 318-449-5019

GIST FIRM, A P.L.C.

Howard B. Gist, III (#06277)
P.O. Box 13705
Alexandria, LA 71315
Telephone: 318-448-1632
Fax: 318-442-5360

BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P.

301 Main St., Suite 2300
P.O. Box 3197
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3197
Telephone: 225-387-4000
Fax: 225-381-8029

s/ Claude F. Reynaud, Jr.

Claude F. Reynaud, Jr. (#11197)
Leo C. Hamilton (#1139)
Carroll Devillier Jr. (#30477)

Counsel for City of Alexandria

4 917847.1
 Case 1:05-cv-01121-DDD-CMH Document 406 Filed 06/01/10 Page 5 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA CIVIL ACTION NO. CV05-1121A

VERSUS JUDGE DEE D. DRELL

CLECO CORPORATION, ET AL. MAG. JUDGE C. MICHAEL HILL

________________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 1st day of June 2010, a copy of the City of Alexandria’s

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Segregate Funds was filed electronically with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System. Notice of this filing will be sent to all counsel of

record by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.

_s/ Claude F. Reynaud, Jr._______________

Claude F. Reynaud, Jr. (#11197)

5 917847.1