Hardy v. Easterling
113 So. 3d 1178
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed suit in Franklin Parish against Easterling alleging fraud, conspiracy, tortious interference, LUTPA, and ADTPA claims arising from Bartmess’s buyout and the subsequent sale of land.
- Bartmess and Easterling allegedly conspired to mine sand on Bartmess’s land and Easterling purchased the 198-acre tract in 2009 for purposes other than mining.
- Plaintiffs had previously settled with Bartmess in a related federal Arkansas action but did not amend to add Easterling.
- The trial court granted an exception of no cause of action and dismissed the petition; it left open amendment under La. C.C.P. art. 934.
- The appellate court affirmed the no-cause-of-action ruling but remanded to allow amendment, holding leave to amend is appropriate if not futile; plaintiffs were granted 30 days to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud claims against Easterling state a cause of action? | Plaintiffs allege misrepresentation/suppression by Easterling. | Easterling had no direct misrepresentations or duty to plaintiffs. | No viable fraud cause of action; amendment allowed if possible. |
| Conspiracy/fraud under Arkansas law stated? | Conspiracy and concealment by Easterling and Bartmess. | No underlying misrepresentation by Easterling; conspiracy insufficient. | Conspiracy claims fail under both Louisiana and Arkansas law. |
| Tortious interference with contractual relations (Ark.) stated? | Easterling interfered with a contract/expectancy. | No valid contract or interference by Easterling shown. | Not stated; lacks actionable facts against Easterling. |
| LUTPA/ADTPA claims stated? | Easterling engaged in unfair/deceptive practices causing loss. | Loss caused by Bartmess breach, not Easterling; no duty shown. | LUTPA/ADTPA claims fail; not shown unlawful acts by Easterling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Everything on Wheels Subaru v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (no evidence in no-action review; de novo standard on appeal)
- Bogues v. Louisiana Energy Consultants, LLC, 71 So.3d 1128 (La.App.2d Cir. 2011) (art. 934 amendment discretion; futility standard)
- McCarthy v. Evolution Petroleum Corp., 111 So.3d 446 (La.App.2d Cir. 2013) (no-requirement of evidence for no-action; petition adequate on face)
- Magill v. Lowery, 990 So.2d 18 (La.App.2d Cir. 2008) (leave to amend not always required; failure to request leave can be fatal)
- Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. American Abstract & Title Co., 363 Ark. 530, 215 S.W.3d 596 (Ark. 2005) (interference with business expectancy doctrine; malice not required in all contexts)
- Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (LUTPA two-part test; ascertainable loss and causation by unlawful acts)
- NOLA 180 v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 91 So.3d 446 (La. 5th Cir. 2012) (LUTPA applying to non-consumers; need not be competitor)
- Turner v. Purina Mills, Inc., 989 F.2d 1419 (5th Cir. 1993) (LUTPA scope; not all business losses are actionable)
- JCD Mktg. Co. v. Bass Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 812 So.2d 834 (La.App.4th Cir. 2002) (malice element discussed in tortious interference)