Henderson v. Bailey Bark Materials
116 So. 3d 30
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Henderson, driving for Jehovah Express, hauled for Bailey Bark and Wood Energy Group on Bailey Bark property.
- A September 27, 2011 dispute at Bailey Bark over loading led to threats and a pipe incident; Henderson allegedly threatened Grant.
- Police were called; Henderson was later identified via a threatening telephone call and arrested the next day for improper telephone communications and aggravated assault.
- Henderson and Jehovah Express filed a multi-claim complaint against Bailey Bark on October 3, 2011, seeking substantial damages.
- Bailey Bark moved for and obtained summary judgment on several claims; Henderson proceeded pro se and later appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding Henderson did not present competent evidence to support his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interference with business relations viability | Henderson claims Bailey Bark interfered with his business with Wood Energy. | Bailey Bark acted to protect its legitimate interests due to threats; interference was incidental. | No genuine issue; Bailey Bark granted summary judgment. |
| Defamation viability | Henderson asserts false police reports damaged reputation. | Statements were privileged good-faith police reports; injury not shown. | Defamation summary judgment affirmed. |
| False imprisonment viability | Henderson was unlawfully detained by Bailey Bark on property. | Arrest was by police on warrants; no detention by Bailey Bark. | No genuine issue; summary judgment for Bailey Bark. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress viability | Bailey Bark’s conduct caused severe distress. | Conduct not extreme/outrageous; privilege applies; no severe distress shown. | Summary judgment affirmed for Bailey Bark. |
| Racial discrimination viability | Henderson alleges discrimination by Bailey Bark owner. | Henderson not an employee; no prima facie case; employer used African-American haulers. | No genuine issue; discrimination claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Junior Money Bags, Ltd. v. Segal, 970 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.1992) (tortious interference requires actual malice and preventing dealings)
- Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594 (5th Cir.1981) (interference with business requires improper influence)
- Bogues v. Louisiana Energy Consultants, Inc., 71 So.3d 1128 (La.App.2d Cir.2011) (disfavor of claim; malice required)
- Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 935 So.2d 669 (La.2006) (elements of defamation; privilege considerations)
- Amos v. Crouch, 71 So.3d 1053 (La.App.2d Cir.2011) (summary judgment evidentiary standards)
- Carter Enterprises, LLC v. Scott Equipment Co., LLC, 91 So.3d 1134 (La.App.2d Cir.2012) (summary judgment standards; no genuine issue)