263 So. 3d 1170
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Pike Barkerding founded SmartPak, LLC to commercialize a patented beverage carrier; he sought Series A funding from NO/LA Angel Network (NOLAAN). Stone Pigman (Whittaker, Bishop) was engaged to represent SmartPak in the Series A; engagement letters identified SmartPak as the client and disclosed potential conflicts.
- Barkerding contends he reasonably believed Stone Pigman represented him personally and that defendants (Stone Pigman and Cara Stone/Graffagnini) conspired with NOLAAN members to dilute his ownership and obtain onerous agreements.
- Stone Pigman represented SmartPak in litigation against Barkerding in 2017; Barkerding then sued multiple parties (later narrowed to Stone Pigman and Cara Stone) asserting malpractice, fraud, LUTPA violations, and conspiracy.
- Defendants filed peremptory exceptions (prescription, no cause of action, no right of action). The trial court dismissed all claims against both defendant groups; Barkerding appealed.
- The appellate court reviews exceptions of no right/no cause de novo and prescription with manifest error when evidence was received; it affirms dismissal in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal malpractice / breach of fiduciary duty (Stone Pigman) | Barkerding: an implied attorney-client relationship existed during Series A negotiations because Whittaker led negotiations and induced reliance. | Stone Pigman: no express or implied client relationship with Barkerding individually; representation was of SmartPak (entity), engagement letters and disclosures confirm that. | Court: No attorney-client relationship with Barkerding personally; malpractice claim dismissed for failure to state right of action. |
| Fraud (against both groups) | Barkerding: defendants misrepresented that Stone Pigman protected his personal interests; he relied and suffered dilution and loss. | Stone Pigman: fraud claims prescribed; Cara Stone: no duty to Barkerding (represented NOLAAN), so no causa of action. | Court: Fraud claims against Stone Pigman prescribed and dismissed; fraud claims against Cara Stone dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. |
| LUTPA violations (against both groups) | Barkerding: LUTPA claim based on unfair/deceptive conduct and continuing deception (tolling). | Defendants: claims time-barred (one-year period); Cara Stone further argues LUTPA cannot be applied to attorney conduct toward adversary. | Court: LUTPA claims against Stone Pigman dismissed as untimely; claims against Cara Stone dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. |
| Conspiracy (against both groups) | Barkerding: defendants conspired to wrest control of SmartPak and benefited from scheme. | Defendants: conspiracy is not actionable absent viable underlying tort; underlying claims are time-barred or fail. | Court: Conspiracy claims dismissed because underlying tort claims fail or are prescribed. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Strategies Group, Ltd. v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 482 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (no implied attorney-client relationship where firm represented the entity and investor did not request personal representation)
- In re Austin, 943 So.2d 341 (La. 2006) (existence of attorney-client relationship depends on reasonable, objective basis for client’s belief)
- Sheinkopf v. Stone, 927 F.2d 1259 (1st Cir.) (no implied attorney-client relationship where investor never requested representation, received no billing, and was not advised of personal representation)
- Born v. City of Slidell, 180 So.3d 1227 (La. 2015) (character of action in pleadings determines applicable prescriptive period)