2400 Canal, LLC v. Board of Supervisors
105 So. 3d 819
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Expropriation petition filed March 2010 by Board to take 2400 Canal Street for VAMC construction.
- 2400 Canal, former owner, sued the Board and President Lombardi alleging violation of Art. I, § 4(H)(1) for leasing without offering right of first refusal.
- A confidential settlement in September 2011 released all claims arising from the expropriation.
- November 2011 petition sought to nullify the Use Agreement with VA, declaratory relief, and damages.
- Trial court sustained all exceptions (res judicata, improper use of summary proceeding, improper cumulation, no cause of action, no right of action) and dismissed the action.
- Appellate court on its own motion noted lack of a cause of action under Art. I, § 4(H)(1) and affirmed the trial court, while dismissing two consolidated cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars 2400 Canal’s claims | 2400 Canal argues comp. release cannot bar constitutional claims | Board/Lombardi rely on release precluding re-litigation | Res judicata barred the action against both defendants |
| Whether mandamus was improperly used (summary proceeding) | Mandamus was proper to compel action | Relief available in ordinary proceeding, so mandamus improper | Improper use of summary proceeding; mandamus not appropriate for the relief sought |
| Whether 2400 Canal has no right of action | Art. I, § 4(H)(1) protections apply to expropriation | Use Agreement is not a lease; no right of first refusal violation | No cause of action against either defendant under Art. I, § 4(H)(1) |
| Whether there was improper cumulation of actions | All related claims could be brought together | Claims must be pleaded separately; improper to cumulate | Explicitly sustained; actions improperly cumulated; dismissed accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- First Natchez Bank v. Malarcher-Damare Co., 135 La. 295, 65 So. 270 (La. 1914) (tests for sufficiency of the petition in no-cause actions)
- Hooks v. Treasurer, 961 So.2d 425 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (rejects legal conclusions clothed as facts in no-cause action review)
- Richard v. Hall, 874 So.2d 131 (La. 2004) (distinguishes lease from right of use; real vs personal rights)
- Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 79 So.3d 246 (La. 2011) (defines lease vs. right of use under Civil Code)
- General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Southeastern Health Care, Inc., 950 F.2d 944 (5th Cir. 1991) (treats leases as personal rights; distinguishes real vs personal rights)