severability clause in Louisiana

2011In light of this severability clause which reflects the parties’ intent and in accordance with this court’s decision in AMCOM [of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson, 06-319 (La.3/29/96), 670 So.2d 1223 ], we, like the court of appeal below, will sever the null clause from the Agreement.

2006Recognizing that, pursuant to a severability clause (sometimes also called a "savings clause"), the court in AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson, 96-0319 (La.3/29/96), 670 So.2d 1223 , had allowed a trial court's reformation of overly broad language, the court in SWAT 24 found that the severability clause in SWAT's agreement made it possible to excise the offending language from the non-competition clause without doing undue damage to the remainder of the agreement.

2002App. 2 Cir. 1/5/96), 666 So.2d 1227 , reversed 96-0319 (La.3/29/96), 670 So.2d 1223 , the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court which had held that a non-compete agreement that had language describing as its geographic scope, "Shreveport or Bossier City, Louisiana, or in Caddo or Bossier Parishes, Louisiana, or within a seventy-five (75) mile radius of Shreveport or Bossier City, Louisiana," did not comply with the language of LSA-R.S. 23:921 calling for "specified" parishes, etc. The non-compete agreement in AMCOM also had a severability clause.

2001The court found this clause unenforceable, but applied the severability clause to hold the remaining provisions enforceable. [6] The court also found support for its conclusion in the noncompetition provisions upheld in Dixie Parking Serv., Inc. v. Hargrove, 96-1929 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/97) , 691 So.2d 1316 , and AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson, 28,171 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/15/96), 666 So.2d 1227 , rev'd, 96-0319 (La.3/29/96), 670 So.2d 1223 .

2018DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS On appeal, Mr. Pirner challenges the district court's February 6, 2018 judgment asserting that the district court, in granting declaratory relief to Mrs. Brady, committed legal error by (1) giving effect to certain provisions in the Agreement after declaring it null and void; and (2) giving effect to the severability clause after declaring the Agreement null and void. 6 Mr. Pirner states that there are no factual issues in dispute-only legal issues. *874 The purpose of a declaratory judgment was addressed by this Court in Bergen Brunswig Drug Co. , 639 So.2d at 455-56

2018DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS On appeal, Mr. Pirner challenges the district court's February 6, 2018 judgment asserting that the district court, in granting declaratory relief to Mrs. Brady, committed legal error by (1) giving effect to certain provisions in the Agreement after declaring it null and void; and (2) giving effect to the severability clause after declaring the Agreement null and void. 6 Mr. Pirner states that there are no factual issues in dispute-only legal issues. *874 The purpose of a declaratory judgment was addressed by this Court in Bergen Brunswig Drug Co. , 639 So.2d at 455-56

2017In SWAT 24, 808 So.2d at 309 , the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the courts’ ability to sever and reform a non-compete clause in accordance with the parties’ intent expressed in a severability clause.

2006SWAT 24, 808 So.2d at 308-09 . [10] Thus, the court refused to declare the agreement a nullity in its entirety.

1976In Roy v. Edwards, 294 So.2d 507 (La.1974), the court, quoting with approval from Gaudet v. Economical Supermarket, Inc., 237 La. 1082 , 112 So.2d 720 (1959), said: "Of course, it is well established that the unconstitutionality of a portion of a statute (or ordinance) does not necessarily invalidate the whole, particularly where there is a severability clause as here.

1976In Roy v. Edwards, 294 So.2d 507 (La.1974), the court, quoting with approval from Gaudet v. Economical Supermarket, Inc., 237 La. 1082 , 112 So.2d 720 (1959), said: "Of course, it is well established that the unconstitutionality of a portion of a statute (or ordinance) does not necessarily invalidate the whole, particularly where there is a severability clause as here.

2025Severability Doctrine Applies The severability doctrine is premised on “a legal fiction that the arbitration provision is an independent contract from the main [container] contract in which it is contained.” Saavedra, 08-1239, p. 8, 8 So.3d at 764 ; Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 70–71, 130 S. Ct. 2772 , 2778, 177 L.

2025Severability Doctrine Applies The severability doctrine is premised on “a legal fiction that the arbitration provision is an independent contract from the main [container] contract in which it is contained.” Saavedra, 08-1239, p. 8, 8 So.3d at 764 ; Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 , 70–71, 130 S. Ct. 2772 , 2778, 177 L.

2006App. 5 Cir.1988) (footnote omitted). [2] A footnote in Tuscano observed that the legislation enacting La.R.S. 14:84 contained "the standard severability clause." Id. at 68 n. 1.

2004In Wied v. TRCM, LLC, (La.App. 2 Cir. 7/24/97), 698 So.2d 685, 688 , the Second Circuit found that the invalid non-competition clause did not invalidate the entire contract.

2004But compare : Cooper v. Orleans Parish School Bd. , 1999-0050 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/8/99) at p. 5 n. 2, 742 So.2d 55 , 59 n. 2.] In the meantime, until the legislature makes such changes in the law as the city needs, the city must perform its duties under the other provisions of Act 33 of 1975 as best it can, since the Junior Chamber of Commerce, a private organization, is no longer functioning and the particular provision of Act 33 of 1975 that assumes this civic club functions is impossible to comply with and since Act 33 of 1975 was enacted with a severability clause within its own Section 33.

2003R.S. 24:175(A), unless "the unconstitutional portions of the statute are so interrelated and connected with constitutional parts that they cannot be separated without destroying the intention manifested by the legislature in passing the act." State v. Azar, 539 So.2d 1222, 1226 (La.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 823 , 110 S.Ct. 82 , 107 *432 L.Ed.2d 48 (1989); Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institutions, 237 La. 315 , 111 So.2d 126 (1958).

2003R.S. 24:175(A), unless "the unconstitutional portions of the statute are so interrelated and connected with constitutional parts that they cannot be separated without destroying the intention manifested by the legislature in passing the act." State v. Azar, 539 So.2d 1222, 1226 (La.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 823 , 110 S.Ct. 82 , 107 *432 L.Ed.2d 48 (1989); Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institutions, 237 La. 315 , 111 So.2d 126 (1958).

2003R.S. 24:175(A), unless "the unconstitutional portions of the statute are so interrelated and connected with constitutional parts that they cannot be separated without destroying the intention manifested by the legislature in passing the act." State v. Azar, 539 So.2d 1222, 1226 (La.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 823 , 110 S.Ct. 82 , 107 *432 L.Ed.2d 48 (1989); Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institutions, 237 La. 315 , 111 So.2d 126 (1958).

2003R.S. 24:175(A), unless "the unconstitutional portions of the statute are so interrelated and connected with constitutional parts that they cannot be separated without destroying the intention manifested by the legislature in passing the act." State v. Azar, 539 So.2d 1222, 1226 (La.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 823 , 110 S.Ct. 82 , 107 *432 L.Ed.2d 48 (1989); Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institutions, 237 La. 315 , 111 So.2d 126 (1958).

2003R.S. 24:175(A), unless "the unconstitutional portions of the statute are so interrelated and connected with constitutional parts that they cannot be separated without destroying the intention manifested by the legislature in passing the act." State v. Azar, 539 So.2d 1222, 1226 (La.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 823 , 110 S.Ct. 82 , 107 *432 L.Ed.2d 48 (1989); Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institutions, 237 La. 315 , 111 So.2d 126 (1958).

2003R.S. 24:175(A), unless "the unconstitutional portions of the statute are so interrelated and connected with constitutional parts that they cannot be separated without destroying the intention manifested by the legislature in passing the act." State v. Azar, 539 So.2d 1222, 1226 (La.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 823 , 110 S.Ct. 82 , 107 *432 L.Ed.2d 48 (1989); Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institutions, 237 La. 315 , 111 So.2d 126 (1958).

2001The court found this clause unenforceable, but applied the severability clause to hold the remaining provisions enforceable. [6] The court also found support for its conclusion in the noncompetition provisions upheld in Dixie Parking Serv., Inc. v. Hargrove, 96-1929 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/97) , 691 So.2d 1316 , and AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson, 28,171 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/15/96), 666 So.2d 1227 , rev'd, 96-0319 (La.3/29/96), 670 So.2d 1223 .

2001The court found this clause unenforceable, but applied the severability clause to hold the remaining provisions enforceable. [6] The court also found support for its conclusion in the noncompetition provisions upheld in Dixie Parking Serv., Inc. v. Hargrove, 96-1929 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/97) , 691 So.2d 1316 , and AMCOM of Louisiana, Inc. v. Battson, 28,171 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/15/96), 666 So.2d 1227 , rev'd, 96-0319 (La.3/29/96), 670 So.2d 1223 .

1998In Henderson Implement Co., Inc. v. Langley, supra, even in the absence of a severability clause in the contract, the court recognized that "it is not necessary that an entire agreement containing a provision against public policy be declared null and void." at p. 5, 707 So.2d at 485 .

1997In Louisiana *260 Associated General Contractors, Inc., supra, 95-2105 p. 22; 669 So.2d at 1201, this court summarized the requisite elements of a severability analysis: The test for severability is whether the unconstitutional portions of the law are so interrelated and connected with the constitutional parts that they cannot be separated without destroying the intention of the legislative body enacting the law.

1981If any provision or item of this Act or the application thereof is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items, or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provisions, items, or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Act are hereby declared severable." [2] In State v. Benitez, supra , the Florida Supreme Court cogently answered the contention that a similar provision was in violation of Fifth Amendment rights as follows: "Finally, the appellees argue that section 893.135 coerces a defendant into relinquishing his fifth amen

1980State v. City of Baton Rouge, 215 La. 315 , 40 So.2d 477 (1949).

1980State v. City of Baton Rouge, 215 La. 315 , 40 So.2d 477 (1949).