Boudreaux v. OS Restaurant Services, L.L.C.
2:14-cv-01169
E.D. La.Jan 23, 2015Background
- Boudreaux was terminated from Outback Steakhouse on May 24, 2013; he had signed an employment agreement containing noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses.
- He alleges the noncompetition clause is invalid under La. Rev. Stat. § 23:921(C) because it lacks the statute’s required geographic restriction.
- After termination Boudreaux claims Texas Roadhouse indicated it would hire him but did not because of Outback’s restrictive provisions; he then sued and sought counsel to challenge enforcement.
- Outback sent a post-termination letter asserting it would aggressively enforce its confidentiality and noncompetition agreements; Outback’s executive allegedly reiterated that position by phone.
- Boudreaux’s amended complaint alleges LUTPA violations (unfair/deceptive practices) and tortious interference with business relations based on Outback’s threatened/enforced use of the allegedly invalid agreement, and seeks damages.
- The district court previously dismissed an earlier complaint for lack of a justiciable controversy and conditionally dismissed the original complaint here, but allowed an amended complaint; Outback moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether threatened enforcement of an allegedly invalid noncompete can state a LUTPA claim | Boudreaux: Outback knowingly threatened/enforced an illegal restraint, causing ascertainable losses and thus engaged in unfair/deceptive acts | Outback: Reminding a former employee of contractual provisions and defending litigation is not fraudulent or deceptive; acted in good faith | Court: Denied dismissal; allegations that Outback knew the agreement was invalid and that its threats caused harm plausibly state a LUTPA claim |
| Whether allegations support tortious interference with prospective business relations | Boudreaux: Outback maliciously enforced the invalid covenant, preventing employment and interfering with potential employers | Outback: Actions were legitimate protection of business interest; plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory | Court: Denied dismissal; pleaded facts adequately allege malice and improper interference for pleading-stage purposes |
| Whether post-termination conduct is time-barred under LUTPA’s one-year prescriptive period | Boudreaux: Harm arose from Outback’s post-termination threats and enforcement (within one year of suit) | Outback: Harm stems from the 2010 agreement, so claims are time-barred | Court: Held plaintiff’s allegations relate to post-termination conduct within the one-year period, so prescriptive argument not resolved on dismissal |
| Whether evidentiary objections (e.g., inadmissible settlement communications) or prior procedural wins defeat the claims at pleading stage | Boudreaux: Settlement communications may be relevant to intent; prior dismissals don't preclude claims | Outback: Phone calls/settlement talks are inadmissible; prior motion successes show no actionable conduct | Court: Rejected evidentiary and preclusion arguments at Rule 12(b)(6) stage; such defenses may be raised later but do not defeat plausibility of the amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Twombly defines the plausibility standard for federal pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Iqbal applies Twombly’s plausibility standard to individual liability and pleading)
- Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. law on Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards)
- Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (LUTPA requires conduct that offends public policy or is egregious/fraudulent)
- Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. recognizing tortious interference in Louisiana and requirement to plead malice)