119 So. 3d 683
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hurricane Fence Company, Inc. and DHS Marketing, Inc. sued Real Flame in the 24th Judicial District Court for injunctive relief or damages.
- Plaintiffs alleged they sold Real Flame products (including fireplaces and gel) online via eBay, Amazon, and other outlets, and that Real Flame imposed minimum advertised prices and recently barred plaintiffs from selling on eBay.
- Plaintiffs claimed LUTPA violations, free-trade rights injuries, and reduced competition, seeking an injunction and damages at trial.
- Real Flame raised declinatory, dilatory, and peremptory exceptions; the trial court granted no cause of action, no right of action, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while denying other exceptions.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the no cause of action ruling, reversed the no right of action and lack of subject matter jurisdiction rulings, and remanded to allow amendment within 30 days.
- The appellate court held there is general subject-matter jurisdiction in the 24th District Court and ordered amendment instead of dismissal, with costs split.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LUTPA stated a cause of action. | Plaintiffs allege LUTPA violations despite absence of contract. | No contract alleged, thus no remedy under LUTPA. | LUTPA claim insufficient but amendable. |
| Whether plaintiffs have a right of action. | Plaintiffs have a right to pursue LUTPA and related claims. | No right of action. | Trial court erred; plaintiffs have a right of action. |
| Whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. | LUTPA claims confer jurisdiction over the action. | Trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. | Court erred; district court has jurisdiction; remand for amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreno v. Entergy Corp., 64 So.3d 761 (La. 2011) (tests for legal sufficiency under an exception of no cause of action)
- Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) ( LUTPA pleading requirements; ascertainable loss and causation)
- NOLA 180 v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 91 So.3d 446 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) ( LUTPA two-prong test for damages actions)
- Badeaux v. Sw. Computer Bureau, Inc., 929 So.2d 1211 (La. 2006) (distinction between no right of action and no cause of action)