THE HAVEN PROPERTY OWNERS SUIT NO.:610,530-C ASSOCIATION, {NC. and BW PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a BRIARWOOD APARTMENTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED JURIDICAL PERSONS VERSUS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CITY OF SHREVEPORT CADDO PARISH, LOUISIANA PL REPLY UMN St TOF Me PART! cy ME] AS TO LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT, THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Plaintiffs, THE HAVEN PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. and BW PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a BRIARWOOD APARTMENTS, and KINGS CROSSING HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC,, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated juridical persons, which hereby file this Memorandum in ‘Support of their “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability of Defendant, the City of Shreveport,”, showing as follows: i LAWAND ARGUMENT A. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS ENTIRELY PROPER, AND 1S PRIMARILY BASED ON THE Crry’s UNEQUIVOCAL, SWORN ADMISSION THAT IT OVERCHARGED CLASS MEMBERS MONEY THAT Was Not OWED 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Addressing Liability of the City of Shreveport for Overcharging and Over-collecting Money from the Class Members is Proper as Submitted to this Court, Especially when the City Admitted Under Oath that it Overcharged Class Members that the City was Not Owed and to Which it was Not Entitled ‘The City admitted to liability in its deposition. HARPER: FEATHERSON: HARPER: FEATHERSTON: HARPER: FEATHERSTON: Now, the -- are you aware that the class action petition filed in this matter alleges that the City collected money as sales taxes on sewer charges and security fees that the City was not entitled to collect? Yes. ‘Are you aware of that allegation? Yes. Is that allegation truc? ‘That is correct. Page 1 of 17HARPER: Okay. So the City owes its commercial customers for 7 amount of the over collection, however much that FEATHERSTON: That is correct, See Exhibit “C” of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs’ MPS") (Deposition of the City of Shreveport, of March 25, 2019), at pp. 10-11. This is an undisputed fact and was noted as such in Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Facts. (See Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, at pp. 2-3 13). The City did not contest that assertion. Instead, in its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the City completely ignores this admission and undisputed fact, and instead repeats its contention that the City “intended” to inform the public and “was going to” issue refund checks before the class action litigation was filed. This claim is not a defense to the Motion for Summary Judgment (nor is it a basis for its own motion). As explained in Plaintiffs” Opposition to the City’s Motion for Partial ‘Summary Judgment (which Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if fully reproduced herein), what the City “intended” to do, or “planned to do” is irrelevant and immaterial to the uncontroverted fact that the City collected money from the class members that it was not entitled to collect. Under any theory of recovery (and most certainly theories of “breach of contract” and “payment of a thing not due”), and no matter how it is framed, the undisputed fact that the City overcharged and over-collected from the class members amounts that the City was not owed and to which the City was not entitled, as admitted in its deposition, is an admission of liability. There is no legitimate argument to be made that Plaintiffs’ have not sufficiently demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the City’s liability, and the City cannot avoid this conclusion by avoiding the issue entirely.! 2. The City’s “Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Fact [sic]” is Unsupportable and Improper Furthermore, the City’s “objections” to Plaintiffs’ “Statement of Undisputed Facts” are likewise improper, baseless, and/or in direct contravention of undisputed evidence presented in ' This opposition (and the City's motion for summary judgment) arc further examples of the City’s attempts to evade, delay, and avoid taking responsibility for their mistakes or for having to pay class members for their error. The City’s latest filings only underscore the “benefit to the class.” A brief thought experiment ‘begs the question of where the class members would be today if not for the fling ofthe class action lawsuit. Page 2of 17support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The burden on the opponent of such a motion to is to establish “genuine” issues of material fact. La, C.C.P. art. 966(D). Such an opposition must also refrain from bad faith responses or responses interposed for purposes of delay. La. C.CP. art. 967. Paragraphs 12 and 16 ‘The City takes issue Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs" Statement of Undisputed Facts, and in so doing, states “The process was ongoing prior to the filing of the lawsuit.” (See “Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Fact”, at $f] 2-3. Paragraphs 12 and 16 of Plaintiffs" Statement of Undisputed Facts read as follows: 12. The City did not begin to issue refunds for the overcharges to the affected customers until after this lawsuit was filed. (See Exhibit “B”; Exhibit “C”, at p. 36). 16. The City started to issue “refund” checks to some commercial and industrial customers after the class action was filed (but before the class was certified) and without entering into any settlement negotiation or discussion with class counsel. (See Exhibit “B”; See also Deposition of the City of Shreveport, March 25, 2019, Exhibit 11 (selected pages annexed hereto as Exhibit “O”)). Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Facts (filed 4/12/19), at pp. 2-3 $9112, 16 (emphasis in original). There is nothing in the City’s Opposition which reflects a “genuine issue” with respect to either of these statements of undisputed fact. ‘The City’s objection to these paragraphs appears to be more of the same argument that the City “intended” to issue refund checks, “was going to” inform customers before the lawsuit was filed. (See City's “Response to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Fact”, at p. 1 9¥2-3)2 The facts—outlined in chronological order in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support—suggest to the contrary; but, regardless of whether the City had “started the process” of calculating the amount of the overcharges or considered distributing a letter to the class members informing them of the overcharges before the lawsuit was filed, the City did not “begin to issue refunds” (e.g: did not Whether the City was “inthe process” of preparing to inform the public and/or issue refunds prior to the lawsuit being filed is not a “material” fact because it does not bear upon liability for the City’s default, as PPlaintfis indicated and explained in their Opposition to the City’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ‘See also Section I(B) infra. Page 3 of 17