Judge Ortego orders ESWS to comply with ruling

Although Judge Gary Ortego delivered a ruling in Randel Brown’s suit against East Side Water System, Inc. last July, both the plantiff and defendants in this matter once again appeared in court on Thursday for a Rule to Show Cause hearing.
A motion for this hearing was filed by attorney Jonathan Vidrine, on behalf of Brown, in an effort to have the defendants, or East Side Water System board, show cause as to why they have not followed all of the judge’s orders.
Brown’s suit was initially filed after the water company’s board of seven, who was represented by attorney Jacob Fusilier, voted at their March 11, 2015 meeting to increase the voter turnout required to validate an election from 10 percent to 50 percent. In their original suit, the plantiff was also requesting access to certain corporate documents.
In July, Ortego ordered that the board of directors is to provide corporate minutes, financial information, and other certain corporate documents to members that request them. The judge also ruled that the board of director’s action at the March 11, 2015 meeting was “invalid and improper” because the corporation failed to file the necessary documentation with the Secretary of State’s office.
Following the judge’s ruling, East Side Water requested that their attorney - Jacob Fusilier - file a suspensive appeal which would have halted Ortego’s ruling until the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rendered their decision.
However, to much time had gone by when the request was made to file this specific appeal, so instead, Fusilier filed a devolutive appeal on behalf of his clients. Unlike a suspensive appeal, if a devolutive appeal is filed, a judge’s ruling must be enforced even while the appeal is being considered by the Third Circuit Court.
This means that voter turnout for the next board election, which was suppose to be February 20, 2017, must be at least 10 percent to validate the election. This also means that Ortego’s ruling concerning access to certain corporate documents also stands.
During the hearing, the defendants provided the judge with a ballot that they had prepared to mail out for the election set on February 20th, which Ortego commended.
Unfortunately though, the layout of the ballot was confusing. Therefore, Ortego ordered that the ballots be re-done.
He also ordered that two separate elections would be held. The elections for districts one, two and four have been set for April 24, 2017. The second election, which will be for district 3’s board seat, is set for May 22, 2017.
Following the hearing, Fusilier said, “We are pleased that the judge found that the board is acting in good faith in their attempts to comply with his ruling and we will continue in our efforts to do so.”