131 So. 3d 130
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- LSU initiated expropriation proceedings (Feb 25, 2011) that included property owned by Dixie Brewery Co., for a new University Medical Center and adjacent VA Medical Center.
- Dixie filed multiple suits seeking injunctions to prevent LSU from transferring the expropriated Dixie parcel to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.); the opinion concerns Dixie’s second petition (filed Oct. 12, 2012) after an earlier petition was denied (Feb. 7, 2012).
- The trial court dismissed the second petition with prejudice on res judicata grounds, concluding the earlier final judgment precluded relitigation; Dixie appealed.
- Both petitions sought the same relief: to enjoin LSU from transferring the property to the V.A. as allegedly violative of La. Const. art. I, §4(H)(1) (restriction on sale/lease of expropriated property to original owner before 30 years).
- Dixie relied on different evidence in each petition (a Right of Use agreement in the first; a later Act of Exchange in the second), but the court found the asserted legal cause of action was the same (preventing the transfer).
- Dixie also argued its pending motion to dismiss the expropriation (La. R.S. 19:147) blocked LSU’s title or actions; the court rejected this, noting the statute does not divest title or rights upon filing such a motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Dixie’s second injunction petition on res judicata grounds | Dixie: second petition asserted a distinct cause of action because it relied on a later Act of Exchange (different operative facts) | LSU: both petitions seek identical relief arising from the same transaction (transfer to V.A.); first final judgment precludes relitigation | Held: Res judicata applies; second petition dismissed because same causes arose from same transaction and existed when first judgment was rendered |
| Whether filing a motion to dismiss under La. R.S. 19:147 divests the expropriating authority of title or blocks transfers until the motion is resolved | Dixie: filing the motion places adjudication of title with the court and prevents LSU from acting regarding the property | LSU: statute requires deposit and vests title upon deposit; filing a motion to dismiss does not divest title or suspend the expropriating authority’s rights | Held: Filing the motion does not divest title or block actions; Dixie’s argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Louisiana, 43 So.3d 207 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (standard of review for exception of res judicata)
- Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (elements required to establish res judicata)
- Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc., 883 So.2d 1146 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (relying on different evidence to support same legal claim does not create a new cause of action)
- Cooper v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans, 197 So. 822 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1940) (courts disfavor multiplicity of suits to obtain same injunction relief)
- Alderdice v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State Univ. & Agr. & Mech. Coll., 107 So.3d 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (upholding constitutionality of LSU’s expropriation authority under La. R.S. 19:141 et seq.)