LOUISIANA JUDICIAL COLLEGE

2016 City and Juvenile Judges Seminar January 13-15, Paragon Casino Resort, Marksville

BEST PRACTICES ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: City Track

Handling $50,000 Civil Jurisdiction Judge Richard Starling, Jr. Alexandria City Court Dealing with the Public Judge Randy Angelle Breaux Bridge City Court The First 365 Days: New Judge Issues and Observations Judge Brian Barber Shreveport City Court Judge Jamie Bice Lake Charles City Court Judge Sherb Sentell Minden City Court

HANDLING CASES INVOLVING THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE THRESHOLD OF LIMITED JURISDICTIONAL COURTS

Richard E. Starling Jr. Alexandria City Court 515 Washington St. Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 318-449-5150 judgestarling@suddenlinkmail.com 2016 City and Juvenile Judges Seminar January 15, 2016

2

I. Statutory and Jurisprudential Guidelines of “Amount in Dispute” A. Statutory guidelines - CCP Articles 4841-4843 The dollar amount that determines the subject matter jurisdiction of city or parish courts starts with CCP Art. 4841. It is determined by the amount demanded in good faith by the plaintiff, but does not include interest, court costs, attorney’s fees, or penalties. If the amount demanded in a supplemental pleading exceeds the jurisdictional limit, the court shall transfer the case to a court of proper jurisdiction. Parish courts are limited to a $20,000 threshold pursuant to CCP Art. 4842. City courts are limited by the legislatively determined amount outlined in CCP Art. 4843. Most city courts are identified with a specified jurisdictional dollar amount in this statute. The vast majority of the city courts in Louisiana have a jurisdictional limitation ranging from $25,000 to $50,000. There are five city courts with a $50,000 limitation. B. Jurisprudential guidelines The ultimate dollar limitation rests on the definition of the “amount in dispute” as determined by the “amount demanded”. This relatively clear term expressed in CCP Article 4841 has been litigated with several reported decisions over the last fifteen years as many city courts have increased their jurisdictional limit. 1. Amount in dispute and amount demanded defined The Supreme Court decided a case in 2015 that seems to be a clear definition of when the determination of amount in dispute and amount demanded is made. It also defined what is included in that definition in the context of automobile insurance coverage. This case involves a personal injury suit which was filed in Monroe City Court which has a jurisdictional limit of $30,000. The plaintiff originally filed suit against the tortfeasor and the tortfeasor’s liability carrier. The plaintiff then filed suit against the uninsured motorist carrier resulting in a claim that exceeded the city court jurisdictional limit. The plaintiff then moved to have the case transferred to district court which the city court granted. The plaintiff then settled for the liability limits of $25,000 and requested that the city court grant a motion to vacate the original transfer order which was

3

granted. The uninsured motorist carrier moved for a summary judgment dismissing the case since the plaintiff had received a $25,000 payment from the liability carrier along with a $5,000 medical payment from the uninsured motorist carrier. The city court treated the motion as an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and it was denied. The city court decided at trial, that the most that could be awarded to the plaintiff was $5,000, which represented the $30,000 jurisdictional limit less the $25,000 liability policy. The court made this finding due to the fact the tortfeasor and his liability carrier were parties before the court at the time of the $25,000 settlement. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial which the trial court granted and increased the award to exceed a $30,000 total recovery. The court based the increase on the theory that the uninsured motorist carrier was the only party before the court at trial. The case was appealed and the appellate court decided that the city court did not have subject matter jurisdiction since the “amount in dispute” exceeded the city court’s $30,000 jurisdictional limit. The court of appeal vacated the judgment and remanded the case to be transferred to district court. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s writ application. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that the determination is made at the time of trial and it did not matter that the total amount recovered could exceed the jurisdictional limit of city court. The court also stated the same rationale applies to jury trials. Swayze et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. 172 So. 3rd 1026 (La. 2015) 2. Summary Judgment on insurance coverage exceeding the jurisdictional limits This issue arose in the context of a plaintiff filing for a Partial Summary Judgment on the issues of liability along with a determination that the tortfeasor’s liability carrier, State Farm, had a liability limit of $100,000/$300,000 and Geico provided uninsured motorist coverage. The case proceeded to trial and the plaintiff was awarded damages. The case was appealed. While on appeal, State Farm filed an exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. State Farm asserted that the request by the plaintiff for a determination that there was uninsured motorist coverage which exceeded the $300,000 per accident, liability limit, resulted in a demand that exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the court. The court of appeal granted the exception and remanded the case to Alexandria City Court for the purpose of transferring the action to district court. Writs were granted by the Supreme Court and the ruling of the court of appeal was reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that when the plaintiff asserted in her

4

original petition that she is seeking damages within the jurisdictional limits of the court she is remitting the balance of her claim pursuant to CCP Art. 5. The court stated that due to this remission of a portion of the claim, subject matter jurisdiction always rested in Alexandria City Court. Thompson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 50 So. 3rd 1271 ( La. App. 3rd 2010). The Supreme Court also mentioned a relevant practical issue when an uninsured motorist carrier is brought into the litigation. In this case there were several claimants asserting claims against the liability carrier. If the claims of the other parties exceeded $250,000, there was a viable claim against the uninsured motorist carrier. This was not decided until trial. There was one other issue that was not mentioned. Even though it was unlikely State Farm would become insolvent during the proceedings, insolvency by the liability carrier could leave an issue as to whether the uninsured motorist carrier would have been the primary insurance carrier at trial. 3. Affect of comparative liability on damage award This involves a situation where the damages clearly exceed the jurisdictional limit of the court. However, once the comparative negligence of the plaintiff is taken into account, the award would be less than the jurisdictional threshold. This case was decided by the Third Circuit with a determination that the plaintiff cannot use comparative fault to bring the case within the jurisdictional limit of a city court when the demand in damages exceeded that amount. The court is limited by the jurisdictional threshold of the court less the comparative fault of the plaintiff. (Ex. $35,000 jurisdictional limit less 20% comparative fault = $28,000 maximum award) In this case, the award was reduced to $17,305.90. Pineville City Court had made a determination that the damages totaled $40,000 before any reduction for fault. This case was complicated by the issue of a $10,000 reduction since the plaintiff did not have liability insurance coverage. This ruling was also instructive on how to calculate the damages if all of these issues were present. This decision also cited a prior similar ruling by the Supreme Court which applied to requests for jury trials. Williams v. Quinn 858 So. 2d 873 ( La. App. 3rd 2003) 4. Retroactivity of CCP Article 4843 The issue of the retroactivity of this statute was addressed in consolidated cases in Alexandria and Pineville city courts decided in 2008. The jurisdictional limits

5

were increased from $35,000 to $50,000 on August 15, 2006. Both cases involve automobile accidents which occurred in 2005 and the suits were filed in April, 2006. Both courts held that the statute was procedural and therefore retroactive to the pending suits. The court of appeal held that the statute was procedural and there was no reference in the statute that would make it prospective. Accordingly, the court of appeal also held that the statute has retroactive application. The Supreme Court denied writs. Patrick Gibson v. Ashley M. Packett and Shelter Mutual Insurance Company consolidated with Jennifer K. Jones v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and Lacy Shaw 975 So. 2d 166 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2008); Writ denied by Gibson v. Packett, 978 So. 2d 351 (La. 2008). These cases would seem to apply to any future amendments to the statute if there is no language specifying prospective application. 5. Consortium claim of a spouse The issue of whether the consortium claim is a separate claim has also been decided by the Third Circuit. The issue is whether the claims of both spouses is limited to one jurisdictional amount because the consortium claim is derivative of the primary claim. When the Alexandria city court jurisdictional limitation was $35,000, the physically injured plaintiff was awarded $35,000, and her husband was awarded $5,000 for loss of consortium. The defendant asserted that the consortium claim of the spouse is a derivative claim of the physically injured spouse and should be included in one jurisdictional limit. This was based on a line of cases holding that a consortium claim is derivative of the primary claim in the, per person, limits in a liability insurance policy. The court held that the consortium claim is similar to a wrongful death claim and the cause of action is separate from the claim of the primary tort victim. This case also cites other cases involving loss of consortium as it applies to city court limitations and jury trial demands. Alma Hardy, et al. v. Horace Mann Insurance Company et al. 956 So. 2d 182 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2007). This holding also seems to be consistent with a literal reading to CCP Art. 4841 which refers to the value asserted in good faith by a plaintiff. This appears to refer to each individual plaintiff.

6

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Issues not involving “Amount in Dispute” A. CCP Article 4847 Article 4847 places a limitation on cases that can be heard in parish and city courts which are not dependent upon the amount in dispute. There are several types of cases that are not allowed. This statute outlines these limitations pretty clearly. However, there are cases that have clarified this statute as it applies to suits involving title to immovable property, and those, in which the state or it’s political subdivisions may be defendants. B. Jurisprudence defining Article 4847 A case that was decided by the Third Circuit in 2013 addressed the issue of whether the subject matter jurisdiction limitation of CCP Art. 4847 (A) (1) applied to cases where title to immovable property is not the ultimate issue, but a precedent to determining possible liability in a tort claim. The plaintiff asserted a claim for trespass as the result of a defendant improperly cutting and removing trees. This was not a claim to quiet title or setting boundaries. The court held that trees are a component part of immovable property. It further held that determining the ownership of the trees was necessary to decide whether the plaintiff could recover. Since the determination of the ownership of the trees was an issue involving title to immovable property, city court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to CCP 4847 (A) (1). Gandy v. Key Realty 128 So. 3d 678 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2013). There is also a limitation which precludes suits in city or parish courts against the state or it’s political subdivisions pursuant to CCP Art. 4847 (A) (6). A suit was filed in Pineville City Court solely against deputies acting in the course and scope of their duties arising out of their employment with the Rapides Parish Sheriff’s office. The plaintiff was apparently attempting to avoid the limitations of CCP Art. 4847 by not naming the Sheriff’s office as a defendant. The trial court actually granted the subject matter exception based on the assertion that the suit arose as a result an assertion of civil or political rights which are also excluded from city court jurisdiction. However, the Third Circuit made it clear that the exclusion applies even when the suit is solely against employees of the political subdivision pursuant to L.R.S. 13:5102 (B). This also applies when there is no civil or political rights claim. This statute requires that all suits brought against an employee of a political subdivision, acting in the course and scope of his or her

7

employment, must be filed in district court. Alvarado v. Poche 819 So. 2d 1150 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2002). As side note, there does not appear to be any prohibition to prevent the state or a political subdivision from filing suit in city court. III. Summary Judgment amendments effective January 1, 2016 CCP Art. 966 was amended this past summer and the amendments became effective on January 1, 2016. The most obvious changes involve the time limits in setting a hearing on the motion. Unless, the parties agree, the motion and documents must be served not less than sixty-five days prior to trial. Notice shall be served not less than thirty days prior to the hearing. The hearing shall be set not less than thirty days prior to trial. The court shall render a judgment not less than twenty days before trial. This was ten days before the amendment. If an appealable judgment is rendered the parties may request written reasons for judgment. There are other more subtle changes which require a careful review of the statute.

Overview of Information Operations 1

15 JAN 2016 1

First 365 Days: New Judge Issues and Observations

Judge Brian Barber (Shreveport City Court)

Judge Jamie Bice (Lake Charles City Court)

Judge Sherb Sentell (Minden City Court)

• “Because we have always done it that way”

• Managing City Court Employees

– Admin aspects of the job

• Replaced entire staff

– City Court staff training (dual track)

• Mentoring (having someone to call)

• New Judges paper packet nightmare

– Retirement transfer

15 JAN 2016 2

• Crash course basics (civil, criminal, juvenile)

• Issues with eviction– Evict tenant but landlord does not own mobile home

• Issues with people in proper person

• Software @ $25,600 – Payable over 3 years

– Criminal, civil, and juvenile

– Grants available after purchase14 JAN 2016 315 JAN 2016 3

Overview of Information Operations 2

• C.Cr.P. art. 895.1(B)(2)—significant portion of budget

– Ward court (Police Jury, Minden, Sibley, Heflin, Dixie Inn, Doyline, and Dubberly)

• Children’s Code 879(B)(1) and State ex rel D.W., 865 So.2d 45 (La. 2004)

– juvenile crimes of violence or 2+ felonies open to public

• Courts under attack (e.g. fixed bond schedule)

15 JAN 2016 4

• Writ of Fi.Fa. and sale of immovable property in City Court to enforce a judgment is Ok

– Stevenson v. Beneficial Finance Co., 295 So.2d 880 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1974)

• Friend who posted bond has no standing to challenge forfeiture to pay fines and court costs, without written evidence of suretyship

– City of Bossier v. Miller, 920 So.2d 408 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006)

15 JAN 2016 5

14 JAN 2016 6

Input from other new Judges

15 JAN 2016 6

RICHARD E. STARLING JR. ALEXANDRIA CITY COURT JUDGE

515 WASHINGTON ST. ALEXANDRIA, LA 71301

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Richard has served as Alexandria City Court Judge since January 1, 2003. He has been

licensed as an attorney since 1984, after graduating from LSU law school. He is a native of

Alexandria, Louisiana, and attended Bolton High School. He obtained an accounting degree in

1981 from ULM. He has taught at Northwestern State University as an adjunct professor. He has

been a panelist for the Louisiana State Bar Association Diversity division, continuing legal

education seminars, as well as a panelist for the Central Louisiana Inns of Court legal writing

techniques. He contributed to the materials promulgated by the Louisiana Supreme Court Rules

of Court for self-represented litigants in City Courts. He has been appointed as a mentor in the

Louisiana Judiciary mentoring program. He is also a member of the Red River Delta Law

Enforcement Planning Council.

He is a former President of the Kiwanis Club Central Louisiana and former President of

the Rotary Club of Alexandria. He has been a Heart of Spain and Gumbo games volunteer. He

has served as a judge of the central Louisiana high school mock court competition and Bolton

High School debate competition. He is also a former Crossroads soccer coach. He was a speaker

for the 2004 Alexandria Human Relations Commission.

Richard has been married to Patricia Aymond for twenty-six years and has two children.

Judge Richard E. Starling, Jr. Resume updated December 28, 2015

PROFESSIONAL

Alexandria City Court Judge since January 1, 2003

Member of Alexandria Bar Association and Louisiana State Bar Association since 1984

Appeared before both Louisiana state and federal courts

Former adjunct Professor, Northwestern State University

Member of the City Court Judges Association

Member of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals Association

Panelist for Louisiana State Bar Association Diversity continuing legal education

Panelist for 2015 Inns of Court legal writing techniques

Louisiana Supreme Court committee member to promulgate Rules of Court for self-represented

litigants in City Courts

Member of the Red River Delta Law Enforcement Planning Council

PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE:

Married 26 years to Patricia Aymond

Two children, Robert Taylor, 22 and daughter, Emilie Claire, 16

Northeast Louisiana University graduate, B.S., Accounting 1981

Louisiana State University Law Center graduate, Juris Doctorate, 1984

Past President of the Kiwanis Club of Central Louisiana

Past President of the Rotary Club of Alexandria

Former board member of the Boys and Girls Club of Central Louisiana

Chairman of Rotary Youth Leadership Award Program 2007-2012

Rotary Youth Leadership speaker 2009-2012

Heart of Spain volunteer

Volunteer Judge for Quein on the Red

Volunteer Judge for the Central Louisiana High School Mock Court Competition

Volunteer Judge for Bolton High School Debate team

Volunteer Judge for the American Legion Oratorical Contest

2004 Speaker for Alexandria Human Relations Commission

Former Crossroads soccer coach

Randy P. Angelle

Randy P. Angelle is a native of St. Martin Parish and a graduate of Cecilia High School. Randy graduated from the University of Southwestern Louisiana in 1974 with a Bachelors of Arts Degree in Political Science. He attended Loyola University in New Orleans where he earned his Juris Doctorate degree in 1977. He immediately formed a partnership with the late Louis E. Bernard as Bernard & Angelle, APLC in Lafayette, where he continued to practice for 34 years. The law firm of Bernard & Angelle, APLC merged with Boyer, Hebert & Abels, LLC on April 1, 2011 to form Boyer, Hebert, Abels & Angelle, LLC. Randy has practiced in the areas of personal injury, products liability, real estate, succession, family law, collections, business litigation and estate planning. He is admitted to all Louisiana State Courts, the Eastern, Middle, and Western Districts of the United States District Courts, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. Randy is a member of the Louisiana State Bar Association, St. Martin Parish Bar Association, Lafayette Parish Bar Association, and the Inn on the Teche. On January 1, 1991, Randy was elected and took office as Judge of the City Court of Breaux Bridge, Louisiana and has continued to serve unopposed. He is a member of many professional organizations including the Louisiana City Court Judge’s Association and the Louisiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, where he has served as past President of both distinguished organizations. Randy was a founder of Citizens National Bank in 1980, which merged and became First Louisiana National Bank in 1992 with branches in Breaux Bridge, St. Martinville and Lafayette, Louisiana. He served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of First Louisiana National Bank from 2005 to 2011 when it was acquired by MidSouth Bank. Randy served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1971-1977. He has also served in numerous civic roles within the community including American Legion, St. Bernard School Board; where

he also served as President, St. Bernard Foundation and the Kiwanis Club. Reaching troubled youth with substance abuse problems, Randy established the first Juvenile Drug Court in a City Court in Louisiana on July 31, 2001. The success of this program led to funding by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and as of July 1, 2012; the drug court program expanded parish wide and is administered by the 16th Judicial District Court. In 2014, the Evangeline Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America awarded Judge Randy P. Angelle their coveted Distinguished Citizens Award. Randy currently resides in Breaux Bridge with his wife, Annette L. Angelle. Randy and Annette are the parents of three children, Monique Angelle Cenac, Cherise Angelle Hurlburt and Justin Paul Angelle, and are the proud grandparents of eleven grandchildren. Areas of Practice

• Personal Injury • Wrongful Death • Product Liability • Medical Malpractice • Maritime/Jones Act • Real Estate Transactions and Closings • Successions and Wills • Family Law • Business Transactions • Commercial Litigation • Estate Planning

Bar Admissions

• Louisiana, 1977 • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana • U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana • U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana • U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit • Supreme Court of the United States of America

Education

• Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, New Orleans, Louisiana o J.D. – 1977

• University of Southwestern Louisiana o B.A. – 1974 o Major: Political Science

Professional Associations and Memberships

• Louisiana City Court Judge’s Association • Louisiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges • Louisiana State Bar Association • St. Martin Parish Bar Association • Lafayette Parish Bar Association

• Inn on the Teche

Judge Brian H. Barber, Sr. 1244 Texas Street • Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

(318) 673-5885 • brian.barber@shreveportla.gov

Career:

City Court Judge Division B – City of Shreveport

Admitted in United States Federal Court – Western District

American Bar Association

Louisiana State Bar Association Member

Shreveport Bar Association Member – Membership Chair, Arbitration Committee Chair

and Golf Committee Co-Chair

Caddo Parish District Attorney’s Office – Assistant District Attorney

DeSoto/Sabine Parish District Attorney’s Office – Assistant District Attorney

Chief City Prosecutor – City of Shreveport

Assistant City Attorney – City of Shreveport

Judicial Law Clerk – Caddo Parish

Involvement:

National Rifle Association Member

Fraternal Order of Police Member

Southern Hills Business Association Member

South Shreveport Business Association Member

North Shreveport Business Association Member

Red Mass Society

Independence Bowl Foundation

Coach – Youth Sports

Prior Involvement:

Louisiana Outstanding Young Lawyer of the Year

National Judicial College – Graduate

Louisiana State Bar Association – Young Lawyers Section District 8 Representative

Caddo Parish Teen Court – Judge

Shreveport Bar Association – Young Lawyers Section President

The Harry V. Booth-Judge Henry A. Politz American Inn of Court - Barrister

Volunteer Youth Justice – Board Member

Shreveport Little League – Board Member

Shreveport Juvenile Justice Board of Directors

St. Charles Neighborhood Association – Board Member

Ellerbe Road Estates Neighborhood Association – Board Member

Towne South Neighborhood Association – Board Member

Y.M.C.A. Executive Committee

D.A.R.E. Speaker

Shreveport Police Academy – Instructor

Personal Information:

Ellerbe Road Baptist Church – Deacon, AWANA Leader, Usher

Married to Becca Carruth Barber

3 children: sons, Brian, Jr. and Tractor; daughter, Bailey

BIO

Jamie Bice was born and raised in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Jamie attended elementary and middle school at F. K. White and high school at LaGrange, graduating in 1985.

Jamie attended Louisiana State University on a football scholarship and was a three-time academic All-SCC Conference safety and member of the 1986 and 1988 SEC Champion Tigers. Jamie graduated from LSU in 1989 with a B.S. in history and later earned a juris doctorate from LSU Paul M. Hebert Law School in 1993.

Jamie was admitted to the Bar in 1993 and in that same year, served as a judicial clerk in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court. Jamie went into private practice in 1994 as a founding partner of the law firm of McLaughlin & Bice and later was a founding partner in the firm of Veron, Bice, Palermo & Wilson. He was elected Judge, Lake Charles City Court, Div. (A) , in December of 2014 and took the bench January 1, 2015.

Jamie is an active member of the Southwest Louisiana Bar Association.

Jamie has been involved in the community as a coach of youth football, basketball, and baseball. He was past president of the South Lake Charles Optimist Club and served on the boards of the American Red Cross Society, Crime Stoppers, and the Tiger Athletic Foundation. Jamie has served in the past as co-chair of the professional division of the United Way Fundraising Campaign and is currently counsel for the Cholley Mac Scholarship Foundation.

BIOGRAPHY OF JUDGE SHERB SENTELL

Sherb Sentell is the Judge of Minden City Court. Sherb graduated from Davidson College in North Carolina with a political science degree and was honored as the distinguished military graduate. After completing Airborne and Ranger School, he then joined the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Sherb was immediately deployed to Iraq with the 82nd Airborne as an infantry platoon leader. Sherb was awarded a Bronze Star Medal for his service in Desert Storm. After Desert Storm, Sherb entered LSU Law School where he was a member of the Louisiana Law Review and published Fixing the Right of Passage from an Enclosed Estate:Deciding Where to Break Out Using Louisiana Civil Code Article 692, 54 Louisiana Law Review 1659 (1994) and graduated Order of the Coif. After law school, Sherb served as a law clerk for Judge Donald Walter (U.S. Western District of LA) in Shreveport.

Sherb then entered private law practice in Minden with his father’s firm while remaining in the Army Reserves. In 1999 at a ceremony at the Pentagon, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki, awarded Sherb the General Douglas MacArthur Leadership Award, an award given annually to only six Reserve officers throughout the United States.

In 2004, Sherb was mobilized to Iraq to serve as the Commander of a transportation unit at Camp Anaconda, the largest logistics base in Iraq. He served a year in Iraq and was awarded a second Bronze Star Medal. In 2012, Sherb was selected to be one of four Army Reservists (non-AGR) to attend the United States Army War College as a resident student in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. In June 2013, Sherb graduated from the Army War College with a Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies and authored A Compelling Solution to Guantanamo Bay as his Army War College Strategic Research Project. Sherb is currently a Colonel in the Army Reserves and serves as a joint logistics plans officer at the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) Headquarters in Tampa, Florida. Since January 1996, Sherb has maintained an active law practice with his father in Minden. Before being elected to the bench, he served as an Assistant District Attorney for Webster Parish for thirteen years. As an Assistant DA, Sherb handled most of the murder, rape, and armed robbery cases. During his time as an Assistant DA, Sherb never lost a criminal jury trial. Sherb is currently serving as the President of the Minden Lions Club and is the incoming Chairman of the Board of Directors of Minden Medical Center. He is a past Chairman of the Minden-South Webster Chamber of Commerce and a past President of the Webster Parish Bar Association. Sherb has two children, Samantha and Chase. He and his family attend First United Methodist Church in Minden.