Gunasekara v. City of New Orleans, 243 So. 3d 623

Two New Orleans CPNC taxi drivers sued, alleging the Department of Safety and Permits enforces licensing rules against taxi drivers but not against Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), contrary to New Orleans Code §162-48.
Plaintiffs sought mandamus to compel the Department to enforce the ordinance against TNCs, arguing the ordinance imposes nondiscretionary duties.
The district court sustained an exception of no right of action against plaintiffs and dismissed their suit without permitting amendment.
The Fourth Circuit converted the appeal to a supervisory writ, granted the writ, denied the requested relief on the merits, but found procedural error in dismissing without leave to amend.
The court held plaintiffs lacked the required special interest (standing) for mandamus because their alleged harms (public safety risk and competitive disadvantage) were shared by the public or all similarly-situated taxi drivers.
The matter was remanded for further proceedings with instruction to allow amendment in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 934.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus may compel the Department to enforce §162-48 against TNCs	The ordinance imposes a ministerial, nondiscretionary duty; mandamus is appropriate to force enforcement	The plaintiffs lack a special, distinct interest required for mandamus standing; enforcement decisions involve discretion	Denied: plaintiffs lack special interest; mandamus relief not warranted on these facts
Whether competitive disadvantage confers standing	Plaintiffs contended Department's inaction gives them a unique competitive injury	City argued competitive harm is shared by all similarly situated taxi drivers and is insufficient for standing	Held: competitive disadvantage is not a special interest; insufficient for standing
Whether dismissal on exception of no right of action was proper without leave to amend	Plaintiffs implicitly argued amendment could remedy pleading defects	City treated dismissal as appropriate based on lack of right of action	Court held dismissal without affording amendment violated La. C.C.P. art. 934; remanded to permit amendment
Standard of review for exception of no right of action	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Review is de novo; court must determine whether trial court applied law correctly

Mendonca v. Tidewater Inc., 862 So.2d 505 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (right-of-action/is a question of law; exception reviewed de novo)
Lauer v. City of Kenner, 536 So.2d 767 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (competitive disadvantage shared by all does not confer standing)
Sewell v. Huey, 779 So.2d 1003 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (mandamus requires plaintiff to show a special interest distinct from the public)
Landis Const. Co., LLC v. Reg'l Transit Auth., 195 So.3d 598 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (discussing mandamus and ministerial duties)
Constr. Diva, L.L.C. v. New Orleans Aviation Bd., 206 So.3d 1029 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (mandamus may compel ministerial duties; extraordinary remedy used sparingly)
Concrete Busters of Louisiana, Inc. v. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, 69 So.3d 484 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (mandamus appropriate in public bid law when the law requires)
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 798 So.2d 1167 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (mandamus will not compel exercise of discretionary authority)