Bogues v. Louisiana Energy Consultants, Inc.
71 So. 3d 1128
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs/lessors own 68 acres of mineral interests in DeSoto Parish across 22 leases; LEC is the successor to the original lessee by assignment.
- Lessee drilled and produced from a well since 1997 but allegedly paid royalties late and did not operate as a reasonable and prudent operator.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment terminating leases and damages; alleged implied covenant of reasonable development was breached.
- LEC reconvention sought damages under La. C.C. art. 2315 for intentional tort and LUTPA violations, accusing plaintiffs of disparaging LEC to third parties to terminate leases.
- Trial court sustained plaintiffs' exceptions of no cause of action and vagueness; LEC amended but the court again sustained no cause of action and vagueness.
- Louisiana Intermediate Court reviews de novo; court agrees there is no cognizable LUTPA or tortious interference claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LUTPA claim state a cause of action? | LEC contends plaintiffs' statements were unfair/deceptive and intended to cripple development. | Plaintiffs argue no LUTPA violation; statements do not amount to unfair trade practices. | No LUTPA claim stated. |
| Was LUTPA standing properly pled (right of action)? | LEC argues it is harmed and thus has LUTPA standing as a competitor. | Plaintiffs previously argued no standing; court resolves standing issue in Cheramie framework. | Cheramie clarifies standing; LUTPA requires actionable conduct, not mere breach of contract; not met. |
| Does tortious interference with business state a cause of action? | LEC alleges lessors interfered with third-party development relations by false statements. | Lessors’ actions are protected as ordinary discourse and not malice-based interference. | No tortious interference; lack of malice and specific improper acts; insufficient facts to show preventing third parties from dealing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 35 So. 3d 1053 (La. 2010) (LUTPA standing and the narrow scope of prohibited practices; some loss required)
- Turner v. Purina Mills, Inc., 989 F.2d 1419 (5th Cir. 1993) (public policy and ethical conduct guidance in LUTPA context)
- JCD Mktg. Co. v. Bass Hotels and Resorts, Inc., 812 So.2d 834 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2002) (malice element required for tortious interference)
- Ustica Enterprises, Inc. v. Costello, 434 So.2d 137 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1983) (malice/ill will required for interference claims)
- Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1981) (limits on tortious interference in Louisiana law)
- White v. St. Elizabeth B.C. Board of Directors, 37 So.3d 1139 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2010) (permissible scope of no cause of action review and pleading standards)