Billy Broussard: “Girouard, Dubroc engaging in desperate attempt to recover from apparent legal ineptitude of Eric Haik;” describes pursuit of 863 Sanctions as “utterly laughable;” exposes loss of 1/3 of Facebook membership overnight upon threatening legal action for leaker of damning posts.

Attorney Eric Haik, whom Billy Broussard indicated in a court filing of Thursday, May 11, 2023, may have been unable to successfully procure attorney’s fees in the matter of Billy Broussard v. Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard and Melissa Dubroc as a result of “apparent attorney ineptitude” on Haik’s part in not filing to seek such attorney’s fees through LA CCP Article 971 prior to the 90-day expiration of time for doing so.

Well, we’ll say one thing for Billy Broussard:  he’s certainly not an advocate of the legal-equivalent of a football prevent defense!  Why do we say that?  Because, in his Opposition Memorandum to Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard and Melissa Dubroc’s Motion for LA CCP Article 863 Sanctions, he literally sent both safeties, and even one of the cornerbacks, in an all-out blitz of the quarterback who, in this football analogy, would be attorney Eric Haik.

It is Haik whom Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard and Melissa Dubroc chose as their defense attorney for Broussard’s defamation case against them.  On April 17, 2023, we published this feature wherein Broussard provided an update on both his defamation suit against “Mob Boss” / Dubroc and also his “identical” lawsuit (the word used by Eric Haik during an April 24, 2023 hearing before Judge Lewis Pitman) against Louisiana State Police (LSP) Trooper Scott Lopez and his son, Benjamin.

For brevity sake, the Lopez suit is now officially dismissed with prejudice at plaintiff’s costs (meaning Broussard pays all court costs but none of Lopez’s legal fees).

As noted at the bottom of the just-linked feature, Broussard filed a similar Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice at Plaintiff’s Cost on March 30, 2023 in the “Mob Boss” matter; however, unlike with Lopez, defense attorney Eric Haik chose to go to the wall entailing “Mob Boss” and Melissa Dubroc by scrambling and filing, within hours, this Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to LA CCP Article 863 on an “Expedited” basis to recover attorney fees in that matter.

Broussard contends that, pursuant to LA CCP Article 1671, he met the criteria for obtaining Judge Vincent Borne’s signature on his voluntarily dismissal order (i.e. with prejudice and him paying both parties court costs, which he supplied Borne with proof he’d paid.)

The St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court concurred with Broussard’s assessment and, accordingly, when it published this docket for April 3, 2023 noted that the case had been “dismissed.”  Nevertheless, Borne, having signed defendants’ Motion for an “Expedited Hearing,” on that April 3, 2023 date, was fully prepared to try the matter of sanctions with Broussard having all of three (3) days to prepare (two of which were weekend days), which would seem to run contrary to:  #1) effectuating service upon Broussard, and #2) providing a minimum of eight days in which Broussard be afforded the opportunity to file a Memorandum in Opposition as part of a Contradictory Hearing on the matter.

When Broussard failed to show up for Court on April 3, 2023, Borne did acknowledge that he was “uncomfortable” proceeding without Broussard present; furthermore, he stressed to Haik that he would only proceed forward after Broussard was properly served and that, if he was inclined to award “any” (which he stressed that word twice within seconds of each other) attorney’s fees pursuant to LA CCP Article 863, it would be only after a formal hearing on the matter.  Accordingly, the matter was reset for Tuesday, May 23, 2023.

Borne stressed that, “the only matter appearing unresolved is attorney’s fees” and appeared to hope the two sides could resolve that.  They have not, so the matter will be decided by Borne on May 23, 2023, after which we’ll obviously report upon his decision.  For now, however, let’s present what Broussard had to say right after filing the above Opposition Memorandum:

Broussard meets with Sound Off Louisiana to review the material in his Opposition Memorandum linked above.

At this time, let’s present some of the highpoints of Broussard’s Opposition Memorandum:

The Judge overseeing the Recusal Motion, First Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Walter Lanier III, whom the Louisiana Supreme Court appointed to hear the matter upon submission of the Motion by this Court, used the adjective of “artful” to describe Judge Borne’s repeated threats of sanctions made to Plaintiff as referenced above.  Just as Plaintiff requested to be added to the Judgment’s wording for that hearing (with that request having been made fully reflected in the Judgment filed in this matter), “artful” has the following synonyms listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (among others):  scheming, devious, deceitful, deceptive, dishonest, cheating, underhanded, untrustworthy, and unscrupulous.

What Defendants are now attempting is an effort to recover from the apparent ineptitude of their Defense Counsel in failing to file a Special Motion to Strike Under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 971 at the outset of this litigation.  Had they done so, this Honorable Court certainly could have granted the Special Motion to Strike and then had the sound statutory authority by which to award “reasonable attorney’s fees” which are plainly stated as being recoverable by the prevailing party upon the filing of such a Motion.

Defendants certainly could have asserted LA CCP Article 971 (Special Motion to Strike) and thereby utilized its statutory provision to formally seek reasonable attorney fees from Plaintiff Under LA CCP Article 971(B).  That subsection states, in pertinent part:  “In any action subject to Paragraph A of this Article, a prevailing party on a special motion to strike shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.”  Defendants simply failed to file such a Motion, and this Court cannot bail Defendants out from their own attorney’s apparent ineptitude!  Plaintiff literally counted the 90 days from Defendants being served in full anticipation that Defendants would file a 971 Motion, but they did not.  Now, the 90-day window from the time of service of the Petition upon Defendants has long since passed.  Accordingly, they are now simply utterly desperate in filing the present utterly laughable Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Louisiana CCP Article 863.

Broussard then reiterated the fact, just as he’d done in his Opposition Memorandum on the Lopez Peremptory Exception, that he relied heavily upon Sound Off Louisiana and its revelations of Shane Evans’ (former Office of Inspector General Investigator) award of $9,700 in attorney fees against Murphy Painter pursuant to a Special Motion to Strike Under LA CCP Article 971, as well as that of  Louisiana State Police’s award of $50,376.25 in attorney fees against former LSP Commissioner Calvin Braxton also pursuant to a 971 filing (both awards are presently under appeal).  Let’s take a look:

Perhaps if ever sued for defamation again, Defendants may contact Ben Mayeux (337-272-0346 or [email protected]) or Amy Groves-Lowe (225-381-0280 or [email protected]).  Further, had Defendants followed Sound Off Louisiana as Plaintiff had, they would have seen the success of these two attorneys in procuring attorney’s fees the proper way through a filing of a Motion to Strike pursuant to Louisiana CCP Article 971 rather than throwing out an absurd “suggestion” to this Court that it “consider” awarding attorney’s fees without even attempting to properly posture such a request for attorney’s fees to this Court.  As Plaintiff stated in his Opposition Memorandum to the Peremptory Exception, he indicated that this Court should, “not even dignify” Defendants’ request for the Court to “consider” awarding attorney’s fees, yet the Court chose to go the route that it did notwithstanding Plaintiff’s own suggestion to the Court that the request to consider “not even be dignified.”

Let’s take a look at the next section of Broussard’s Opposition Memorandum:

Plaintiff now directs this Court’s attention to the bottom of Page 3 of MOS-1, where, quoting Defense Attorney Haik, the following statement was made before Judge Pitman:

There’s video being posted about Mr. Broussard, basically making a mockery of the Court, that if he is cast with cost and expenses and attorney’s fees that he’s not going to pay them.

This is further evidence that Defendants and their Counsel say whatever they want to say irrespective of what the facts are!  In the video in question, what Plaintiff said, upon being asked what he would do if this Court does award attorney’s fees, is to state that, “I will appeal the Court’s decision,” which Plaintiff most certainly has every right to do, and he will most certainly exercise that right, and Defense Counsel, despite his distortion of what was said on the video, is well aware of Plaintiff’s right to appeal any decision of this court.  For Defense Counsel to indicate that Plaintiff is, “making a mockery of the Court” is an outrageous and wholly unsupported allegation, especially when it is he who is consistently making a “mockery” of the Court in saying a judge can, “do whatever he wants to do irrespective of what a Statute says,” and further making the “suggestion” to the Court that attorney’s fees be awarded on a Peremptory Exception when he fully knows such an award cannot be substantiated by any statutory provision.  Further, it’s utterly absurd for Defendants to even make the argument that Plaintiff will not pay Court Costs, when they know the reality is that Plaintiff has ALREADY PAID Court Costs, which prompted the Clerk of Court of St. Martin Parish to declare the matter “dismissed” and so note that fact on the Docket, yet this Court chose to proceed on with an April 3, 2023 hearing anyway, a transcript of which is included with this Opposition Memorandum as MOS-5.  Further, this Court is well-aware of Plaintiff’s payment of those Court Costs as proof of same was supplied with a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the instant matter with prejudice at Plaintiff’s Cost, which is what prompted Defendants’ mad scramble to seek an “Expedited Hearing” on the present Motion for Sanctions under Louisiana CCP Article 863 for which this Opposition Memorandum even became necessary.

If this Court is inclined to award attorney fees, Plaintiff will follow the examples provided in the Calvin Braxton litigation and:  #1) file notice of intent to lodge a Devolutive Appeal, then #2) require of this Honorable Court that it issue its Written Reasons for Judgment (just as Braxton, who contends LSP is entitled to no attorney’s fees and that, if they are ultimately awarded upon appeal, should approximate no more than $5,000 rather than the $50,000+ awarded via the Judgment on MOS-3, did).

Further, this Court readily acknowledged (see the bottom of Page 6 of MOS-5) that the only issue that remains unresolved is whether this court is inclined to grant “any” (see middle of Page 6 of MOS-5) attorney’s fees (with the word “any” stated twice within seconds of each other).  Plaintiff contends that this case fails miserably to meet the criterion of being “frivolous,” and he further states that Defendants are well of that fact.  Plaintiff bases that assertion upon:

#1) The numerous Facebook posts which were published by Defendants (many of which have already been recorded into the public record on this matter), and Plaintiff is now in possession of far more such posts to include Defendant Girouard (a/k/a “Mob Boss”) removing 10+ members for “lurking.”  Lurking is someone who is a member but fails to contribute to the group.  Given that the group SHOULD be a mere medium for transmitting benign and useful material to Members, there should be nothing wrong with “lurking.”  However, because Defendant Girouard was concerned that someone may be a member of the group and provide damning material to Plaintiff about her and others’ Facebook posts, her paranoia over such an action by a member would prompt her to remove Members for mere inactivity.  Fortunately, as a result of this litigation and the stir created within the Facebook Group, a Good Samaritan has provided Plaintiff with a plethora of such posts.  That particular Facebook post (about removing Members for “lurking”) is included with this Opposition Memorandum as MOS-6.  Interestingly enough, a week after this suit was filed, any reference to Plaintiff or his property ceased and has never been resumed!  Plaintiff can only wonder why there was such fear of it being uncovered that Defendants were posting lies and untruths about Plaintiff if such a fear wasn’t justified.  In other words, why not just keep on doing what you’re doing if you weren’t publishing false and defamatory material about Plaintiff?  Defendants don’t seem to reference that or provide any explanation for it in the subject Motion for Sanctions in their filing under LA CCP Article 863.  In short, Defendants know full well that they do not even remotely come close to clearing the bar for an award of sanctions pursuant to Louisiana CCP Article 863, but they’ve insisted upon the Motion being filed (even on an “Expedited Hearing” basis) for fear this Court would sign Plaintiff’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice at Plaintiff’s Cost as nothing short of a last-ditch, desperation, Hail Mary in the hope that this Court will once again be gullible enough to act upon it!  Who knows?  Perhaps Defense Counsel Haik overpromised his clients on his sway with this Court and is now having to scramble to overcome the fact that his clients know he apparently had such ineptitude regarding defending defamation lawsuits that he didn’t have a clue about Louisiana CCP 971!

#2) Defendant Girouard actually threatened her entire Membership that she would uncover the culprit who, “took screenshots” of the Facebook posts and, “report that individual to authorities.”  That Facebook post, which Girouard subsequently deleted but which nevertheless was screenshot and is provided as MOS-7, resulted in Defendant Girouard losing 33 of her 101 Members overnight!  As previously demonstrated, Defendant Girouard (a/k/a “Mob Boss”) was narcissistic to the point of having a custom-made T-shirt with the lettering “Mob Boss” on full display on the shirt’s right sleeve which she made it a point to wear at the Council meeting of early March, 2022 entailing Plaintiff’s variance.  Beyond that, as evidenced by MOS-8, Girouard also greeted her Facebook group members on April 17, 2022, with the post of “Happy Easter to you all from…” followed by a custom-made coffee mug also with the words, “Mob Boss” on prominent display.

#3) One former Member of the group informing Plaintiff that he posted on the Facebook group a comment favorable to Plaintiff, and the result was that his post was immediately removed, and he was banished from the Group immediately!  Defendant Girouard reportedly told other Facebook Members that she was not going to tolerate any such favorable posts about Plaintiff.

#4) Defendant Melissa Dubroc posting that the neighbor across the street from Plaintiff’s property, Chris Decuir, who has been very supportive of Plaintiff and even provided him with useful details about the circulation of the “Petition” by Defendants, is a “snake” and that he is, “not on our side.”  That Facebook post is included with this Opposition Memorandum as MOS-9.

Plaintiff could continue with FAR more examples of the reckless publications made by Defendants on the Facebook Group, but he believes these should suffice for purposes of easily defeating Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions for attorney’s fees, which is itself laughable and nothing short of a misguided attempt by Defendants to recover from the fact that they failed to do as other Defendants in defamation cases (such as Louisiana State Police and the Louisiana State Office of Inspector General) did, perhaps through employing more astute attorneys when it comes to defending defamation cases than the attorney representing Defendants, and simply file a Motion to Strike Pursuant to Louisiana CCP 971 just as they did and now have judgments (albeit both of which are being appealed) for an award for attorney’s fees pursuant to their astute filings in representing their clients.

We’ll go ahead now and provide the Facebook posts which Broussard references above (we’re just going to place them in the order Broussard references them above and simply provide their identification reference):

MOS-6 (Lurker purge)

(Threat of legal action against Facebook post leaker which Broussard asserts was subsequently deleted.  Broussard reports that “Mob Boss” lost a third of her membership overnight as a direct result of the above threat, with membership declining from 101 members to 68 members in the 24-hour period after the post was made.  Obviously, the post had little impact as the leaker obviously continued to maintain membership on the Facebook group!  We assume the loss of a third of her membership is an indication that people don’t take too kindly to threats of the nature “Mob Boss” made above).


MOS-8 (Mob Boss vanity coffee mug).

MOS-9 (Melissa Dubroc warning to members to “beware of Chirs Decuir …he is a snake……He is NOT on our side!”

Broussard also chose to make it clear that his reason for dismissing the suit dealt with his unease of the judge presiding over it combined with the fact he indicated that he made an, “economic decision that I would be throwing good money after bad” entailing any ability to collect upon a judgment handed down against either “Mob Boss” or Dubroc.  He then cited the fact that “Mob Boss” resides in a house trailer on her parents’ property and may be unable to possess the financial capacity to satisfy any such judgment.

Broussard also supplied the material we’ve previously provided entailing all of the extensive past problematic filings available at the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court’s Office entailing Melissa Dubroc or her husband, Blake.  We’ll repeat those the table itemizing those filings at this time:

Date of Dubroc Event and Notation of Criminal or Civil MatterNature of Dubroc Event
March 15, 2001 - CivilMarcus Andrus: alleged redhibitory defect on auto sold (also claimed Dubroc sought to “backdate extended service agreement” to which Andrus responded: “I want no part of your illegal and fraudulent scheme.”)
June 26, 2001 - CriminalDisturbing the peace while intoxicated.
June 19, 2004 - Criminal.Refusing to leave a bar at the required closing time.
September 2, 2004 - Criminal.Simple assault and battery.
October 13, 2004 - CriminalIllegal burning (only specifies "solid waste").
November 3, 2004 - Criminal.Not leaving bar at required 2 a.m.. closing time (arrested due to other outstanding warrant(s)).
March 9, 2005 - Civil.Files restraining order against his wife, Melissa.
April 25, 2005 - Civil.Iberia Bank files suit for unpaid credit card ($7,600).
April 29, 2005 - Civil.Ideal Auto Sales, $1,000 worth of auto work allegedly performed, $500 payment made, after which stop-payment immediately issued.
June 10, 2005 - Civil.Harley Davidson files suit for unpaid note on motorcycle ($11,200).
August 12, 2005 - Civil.His wife Melissa files restraining order against her husband, Blake.
February 21, 2006 - Criminal.Felony charge of assault with a firearm. On 11/13/08, DA case nolle prossed (not prosecuted). SMPG President Cedars, who was Assistant DA at the time, likely made the call NOT to prosecute Dubroc!
March 15, 2007 - Civil.Garnishment filed on 4/29/05 entry above.
July 15, 2008 - Civil.Jessica Broussard affidavit for alleged $2,500 in “car repair work.” (Answer filed denying and that was that).
June 15, 2009 - Civil.Bank of America, Garnishment & Executory Judgment from Lafayette Parish, ($23,800).
March 16, 2019 - Civil.Filed TRO against then-son-in-law (who lived with Dubroc’s daughter in a mobile home behind his house) allegedly engaged in harassment and that son-in-law “blocked access to and from the used car lot.”

All right.  Let’s give a tad more of Broussard’s Opposition Memorandum as we wrap up this feature:

If this Court was inclined to grant a hearing (which clearly it was), that Hearing date should have been set for a date sufficiently far enough in the future to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to draft an Opposition Memorandum and have that Memorandum filed at least eight (8) days prior to the Hearing date in order to be afforded due process of evening (sic) being able to make oral arguments in open Court opposing the Motion.  That apparent indifference to Plaintiff’s right of due process simply further demonstrates the uneasiness of Plaintiff concerning the judge overseeing this case, and it is why he insists that he would have been an idiot to have shown up on April 3, 2023 under such circumstances.

Like we said, Broussard isn’t a fan of the legal equivalent of football’s prevent defense, no?  He called an all-out blitz.  We’ll report soon after May 23, 2023 on how his play calling for this situation turned out (assuming there isn’t resolution reached prior to then to avoid just what may be an embarrassing episode for Judge Borne and attorney Haik).  After all, if Borne may have been initially running a bluff on February 15, 2023 and merely wanted the matter off his docket as quickly as possible and chose the threats of attorney’s fees if Broussard opted to amend his petition, then Broussard has now pushed all his chips to the center of the table and emphatically said, “I call!”


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.