163 So. 3d 201
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Burches appeal a trial court judgment granting res judicata and peremption exceptions by Roberts and Continental related to Barrasso’s prior open-account litigation.
- April 29, 2013 judgment dismissed the reconventional demand and third-party demand as perempted, ending Barrasso’s management of the underlying dispute by September 24, 2008 settlement.
- Barrasso’s fees exceeded $200,000; the Burches later asserted fraud, overbilling, and breach of fiduciary duty in reconventional and third-party pleadings.
- The 2013 judgment held the reconventional claims accrued before the settlement and were time-barred; it discussed continuous representation as non-applicable to peremption.
- On October 29, 2013 the Burches filed a LUTPA-based suit against Roberts and Continental, which was consolidated with open-account litigation; Roberts filed res judicata and peremption defenses.
- April 7, 2014 judgment affirmed the trial court’s rulings, concluding res judicata and peremption barred the LUTPA/merit claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata precludes the LUTPA and related claims | Burches contend claims arise from Barrasso/Roberts conduct in the prior action. | Roberts argues identical issues were litigated and resolved in the reconventional judgment. | Res judicata applies; claims barred. |
| Whether peremption under La. R.S. 9:5605 bars the action | Burches claim fraud and overbilling fall outside peremption and seek continuous wrongs. | Peremption applies to legal malpractice claims; acts occurred before 2008 and suit filed after one year. | Peremption sustained; action timely only within peremptive window. |
| Whether LUTPA claims were timely filed | Burches maintain LUTPA applicability to legal profession and fraud within peremption rules. | LUTPA actions are peremptive and time-barred; rationalized within 1-year period. | LUTPA claims perempted; not timely. |
| Whether the court erred by not admitting certain fraud evidence | Burches claim compelling fraud evidence existed to overcome peremption. | Court properly limited review to res judicata/peremption; evidence on merits not reconsidered. | No reversal; merits evidence not reviewed for these issues. |
| Whether the petition to amend responses and LUTPA-related claims should be allowed | Burches sought amendments to assert LUTPA and other claims. | Court denied amendments as moot or improper given finality of prior judgment. | Motion to amend denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avenue Plaza, L.L.C. v. Falgoust, 676 So.2d 1077 (La. 1996) (final judgment; thing adjudged limits revisiting merits)
- Chevron USA, Inc. v. State, 993 So.2d 187 (La. 2008) (five elements to establish res judicata)
- Reeder v. North, 701 So.2d 1291 (La. 1997) (continuous representation rule does not suspend peremption)
- Miralda v. Gonzalez, 160 So.3d 998 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2015) (peremption guidance for legal malpractice; timeliness under 9:5605)
- Shreveport Credit Recovery v. Modelist, 760 So.2d 681 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2000) (overbilling/fraud not always subject to malpractice peremption)
- Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (transaction/occurrence test for res judicata)