156 So. 3d 134
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Decedent Morgan Jeansonne (18) died by suicide; father Chet Jeansonne arranged burial with Escude Funeral Home at St. Paul Cemetery.
- Mother Sharleen Desselles Jeansonne sought exhumation and, after coroner declined, her attorney Cory P. Roy obtained an ex parte court order authorizing exhumation and autopsy.
- Roy allegedly told the judge the coroner was "in the loop;" the order directed the "appropriate authority" to exhume and submit the remains for autopsy.
- Escude received the signed order, exhumed the casket, transported it for autopsy, then reburied the remains; Chet was served only after the exhumation.
- Chet sued Roy (attorney) and Escude (funeral home) for damages; trial court granted Roy an exception of no cause of action, granted summary judgment for Escude, denied Roy's special motion to strike, and denied Chet's new-trial motion. Appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition states a cause of action against opposing counsel (Roy) | Roy intentionally procured ex parte order, misled judge about coroner, and intended to/should have known his acts would harm Chet | An attorney owes no duty to an adversary absent intentional tort; pleadings do not allege facts showing intent to cause direct harm | Petition fails to allege facts showing intent to cause direct harm; exception of no cause of action affirmed |
| Whether Escude Funeral Home is liable for complying with the court order (summary judgment) | Exhumation violated statutes and public policy; genuine factual disputes (who authorized, service, cemetery permission, statements by Escude) | Escude acted pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction and La. R.S. 8:660(3) permits disinterment by court order; no conflict with Crim. P. art. 102 | No genuine issue of material fact; Escude entitled to summary judgment — affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Chet's motion for new trial (based on allegedly false affidavit) | Priest's affidavit contradicts Escude's affidavit (priest not contacted) so summary judgment rests on false statement, warranting new trial | No legal requirement that cemetery authority be contacted before complying with valid court order; alleged falsehood is not material | Denial of new trial affirmed (false statement did not create material fact issue) |
| Whether Roy's special motion to strike (La. C.C.P. art. 971) should have been granted and fees awarded | (Chet) N/A on appeal of motion; alleged misconduct falls outside protected petitioning activity because it was wrongful and intentional | Roy's statements are acts in furtherance of petitioning/judicial process and covered by art. 971; plaintiff cannot show probability of success | Trial court erred in denying motion to strike; appellate court reverses, grants motion and awards $2,500 fees to Roy |
Key Cases Cited
- Perritt v. Dona, 849 So.2d 56 (La. 2003) (exception of no cause of action tests legal sufficiency of petition)
- Montalvo v. Sondes, 637 So.2d 127 (La. 1994) (attorney not liable to adversary absent intentional tort; petition must allege intent to cause direct harm)
- Penalber v. Blount, 550 So.2d 577 (La. 1989) (attorney may be liable for intentional torts causing direct harm to adversary)
- Credit v. Richland Parish Sch. Bd., 85 So.3d 669 (La. 2012) (court must accept well-pleaded facts as true on exception of no cause of action)
- State, Div. of Admin. v. Infinity Sur. Agency, 63 So.3d 940 (La. 2011) (issue is whether petition on its face entitles relief)
- La. Safety Ass’n of Timbermen Self-Insurers Fund v. La. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 17 So.3d 350 (La. 2009) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; standards for summary judgment)