Green v. Garcia-Victor, 248 So. 3d 449

Background

Twenty-six taxi drivers ("Cabbies") sued thirty-one Uber drivers ("Ubers") under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), alleging Ubers operated outside applicable regulations and siphoned taxi market share, causing lost income and other damages.
The petition alleged specific ordinance and state-law violations (street hails, use of cab stands, airport fares, failure to report accidents/submit to drug tests, licensing and insurance requirements) and identified some dates and defendants.
The Ubers filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action; the trial court denied the exception as to the Second Amending, Supplemental and Restated Petition.
This court (en banc) reviewed under de novo standard after the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded for full briefing and opinion.
The majority held the petition stated a LUTPA cause of action (ascertainable loss alleged; unfair practices alleged); several judges dissented, raising concerns about class/representative relief, causation, and insufficient conspiracy pleading.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petition states a LUTPA cause of action based on alleged regulatory and ordinance violations	Cabbies: Ubers’ violations of city ordinances/state rules constitute unfair trade practices causing ascertainable loss	Ubers: Allegations are conclusory, rely on regulatory violations that don’t create private LUTPA claims; failures go to merits	Majority: Petition states a cause of action under LUTPA; exception properly denied
Whether plaintiffs alleged an ascertainable loss	Cabbies: Alleged loss of income, market share, reputation, goodwill, and fees (amounts to be proven later)	Ubers: No specific quantified loss alleged; insufficient at pleading stage	Majority: Allegations suffice to plead ascertainable loss for pleading purposes
Causation and specificity as to individual defendants	Cabbies: Collective and example-based allegations show Ubers’ practices caused harm to Cabbies	Ubers: Plaintiffs failed to tie specific plaintiffs’ losses to specific defendants or acts; conclusory collective pleading inadequate	Dissent: Petition fails to plead causation for individual defendants; majority disagreed, treating merits as for later stages
Use of class/representative allegations (defendant class)	Cabbies: Sought to define defendant class of all UberX drivers in New Orleans (alleged to support broad claim)	Ubers: LUTPA precludes private representative/class actions; defendant-class claim inconsistent with statute	Majority: Not deciding class certification; observed LUTPA allows individual claims but class relief is a separate issue; dissent emphasized statutory bar and risk to LUTPA viability

Key Cases Cited

Farmco, Inc. v. W. Baton Rouge Par. Governing Council, 789 So.2d 568 (La. 2001) (exception of no cause of action—resolve doubts in plaintiff’s favor).
Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (elements of LUTPA claim: ascertainable loss caused by unfair/deceptive practices).
Quality Envtl. Processes, Inc. v. I.P. Petroleum Co., Inc., 144 So.3d 1011 (La. 2014) (LUTPA violations determined case-by-case; practice must offend public policy/be egregious).
2400 Canal, LLC v. Bd. of Sup’rs of La. State Univ., 105 So.3d 819 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (exception of no cause of action—courts consider only petition and annexed documents; legal conclusions not accepted as facts).
831 Bartholomew Investments-A, L.L.C. v. Margulis, 20 So.3d 532 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (pleading facts required; mere conclusions insufficient).
Jefferson v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 713 So.2d 785 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (distinguishing unfair and deceptive practices under LUTPA).
JCD Mktg. Co. v. Bass Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 812 So.2d 834 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (LUTPA does not forbid legitimate competitive conduct; remedies limited to egregious means).
Rasier, LLC v. City of New Orleans, 222 So.3d 806 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (distinguishing regulatory regimes for TNC drivers vs. taxi drivers).