271 So. 3d 223
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs own land in Louisiana downstream from the Toledo Bend Dam and allege construction and operation of the dam altered the Sabine River, increasing flood risk and causing catastrophic flooding on March 10, 2016. They seek inverse condemnation compensation under La. Const. art. I, § 4 and La. R.S. 13:5111.
- Defendant is the Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana (SRA-L), a state agency and FERC licensee for the Toledo Bend project.
- SRA-L removed the suit to federal court alleging federal-question jurisdiction; the federal court remanded for lack of jurisdiction.
- On remand SRA-L filed an exception of no cause of action, arguing plaintiffs’ state inverse-condemnation claim is preempted by the Federal Power Act (FPA) and impermissibly collaterally attacks FERC licensing. Trial court sustained the exception and dismissed with prejudice.
- The appellate court reviews an exception of no cause of action de novo, accepting well-pleaded facts as true and resolving doubts in favor of a cause of action; affirmative defenses (like preemption) must be shown to exclude every reasonable hypothesis otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state inverse-condemnation claim is preempted by the FPA | Plaintiffs: state inverse-condemnation claim is preserved by 16 U.S.C. § 803(c) and does not conflict with FERC's operational control | SRA-L: the claim conflicts with FERC authority and is a collateral attack on FERC licensing; state law would alter duties set by FERC | Reversed trial court — claim not shown to be preempted on the face of the petition; plaintiffs may proceed in state court |
| Whether plaintiffs’ petition impermissibly attacks FERC’s licensing determinations | Plaintiffs: seeking compensation for a taking, not injunctive relief or a challenge to the license | SRA-L: recovery would require disregarding FERC’s findings and effectively regulate license compliance | Held: on petition alone, the court must accept plaintiffs’ allegations; dismissal for preemption improper because petition does not necessarily require disregarding FERC |
Key Cases Cited
- City of New Orleans v. Board of Commissioners of Orleans Levee District, 640 So.2d 237 (La. 1994) (well-pleaded facts accepted on exception of no cause of action)
- State Through Dept. of Transp. & Development v. Chambers Inv. Co., Inc., 595 So.2d 598 (La. 1992) (inverse condemnation remedy and elements explained)
- Simmons v. Sabine River Authority of Louisiana, 732 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2013) (FPA preemption of state claims that function as collateral attacks on FERC-licensed operations)
- Kurns v. R.R. Friction Products Corp., 565 U.S. 625 (2012) (framework for types of federal preemption and effect of state damages claims on federal regulation)
- Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 1999) (distinguishing conflict preemption as a defense from complete preemption supporting federal jurisdiction)
- Fisher v. Halliburton, 667 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard for sustaining an affirmative-defense-based no-cause-of-action exception)