66 So. 3d 564
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Nathen Bandaries filed a suit in 10th JDC seeking $33,744.14 from Cassidy for loans related to Cassidy’s film project.
- Before this suit, Cassidy filed CDC-1 in Orleans Parish for declaratory judgment regarding an attorney contract, and Bandaries/PLC filed CDC-2 alleging attorney fees related to the same contract.
- CDC-1 and CDC-2 were assigned to different divisions, and Cassidy moved to consolidate the two suits in Orleans Parish.
- The 10th JDC granted an exception of lis pendens, and Bandaries challenged the ruling on new-trial grounds.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the two Orleans suits and the 10th JDC suit arise from the same transaction and involve the same parties in the same capacities.
- The court concluded amendment of the CDC proceedings did not defeat the lis pendens, and the parties are effectively the same for lis pendens purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lis pendens was proper due to pending suits | Bandaries argues the CDC suits are distinct actions | Cassidy contends both suits involve same transaction/occurrence | Yes; lis pendens proper as two suits involve same transaction/occurrence and same parties in same capacities |
| Whether the suits involve the same transaction/occurrence | Suits involve different causes of action (unjust enrichment vs. contract) | Suits arise from the same loans/transaction | Yes; same transaction/occurrence applies under R.S. 13:4231 |
| Whether the suits involve the same parties in the same capacities | CDC-1 parties distinct due to amendment | Parties effectively merged in same legal capacity | Yes; parties are the same in the legal sense for lis pendens |
Key Cases Cited
- Coury Moss, Inc. v. Coury, 981 So.2d 936 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2008) (test for lis pendens is whether final judgment would be res judicata in later suit)
- Travcal Properties, LLC v. Logan, 49 So.3d 466 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (discusses lis pendens framework and same-transaction requirement)
- La Cotton Ass'n Workers' Comp. Group Self-Ins. Fund v. Tri-Parish Gin Co., Inc., 624 So.2d 461 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993) (identity of parties may merge into one for lis pendens purposes)
- Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, L.L.P., 806 So.2d 163 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2002) (identity of parties may be same in legal sense even if not identical individuals)
- Domingue v. ABC Corp., 682 So.2d 246 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1996) (rule on issue preclusion and transaction/occurrence scope)