302 So.3d 8
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Joshua and Janice Bruno (New Orleans residents) contracted with CDC Auto Transport to ship a 2007 Mercedes from Maine to New Orleans; CDC subcontracted (allegedly) to Esperanza, Inc. (Massachusetts).
- Esperanza produced a bill of lading with Terms & Conditions containing a forum-selection clause requiring litigation in Hampden County, Massachusetts; Plaintiffs dispute receipt/authenticity of that document.
- Delivery allegedly failed after the driver demanded an extra $350 for wait time; Esperanza retained possession of the vehicle and Plaintiffs sued in Orleans Parish for return/value of the vehicle and damages.
- Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary default; Esperanza filed a motion to set aside the preliminary default and later (after the motion) filed a declinatory exception of improper venue asserting the Massachusetts forum-selection clause.
- The trial court maintained the exception and dismissed the action without prejudice; the court of appeal reversed, holding Esperanza waived the venue objection by not pleading the declinatory exception prior to or along with the motion to set aside the preliminary default as required by La. C.C.P. art. 928.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Esperanza waived its venue objection by making a "general appearance" through its motion to set aside the preliminary default | Esperanza made a general appearance (by moving to set aside default), so it waived the venue objection | The motion to set aside the preliminary default was not a general appearance that waived venue; the declinatory exception was timely | Waiver: court held Esperanza waived the venue exception because La. C.C.P. art. 928 requires pleading a declinatory exception prior to or along with any pleading seeking relief; Esperanza filed its exception after seeking relief, so waiver; trial court reversed and remanded |
| Enforceability of the bill-of-lading forum-selection clause | Forum-selection clause/Terms & Conditions are invalid/unenforceable (challenged authenticity/notice) | Bill of lading and terms were presented and signed; clause is binding | Moot: appellate court did not reach merits of enforceability after finding venue waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Land v. Vidrine, 62 So.3d 36 (La. 2011) (apply clear statutory language; interpret statutes as written when unambiguous)
- Louisiana Mun. Ass'n v. State, 893 So.2d 809 (La. 2005) (principles of statutory interpretation cited for applying article text)
- Matthews v. United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 213 So.3d 502 (La. App. 4th 2017) (standard of review for venue exceptions is de novo)
- Yell v. Sumich, 997 So.2d 69 (La. App. 3d 2008) (discussed procedural vehicle distinctions for venue rulings)
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La. 2011) (trial court reasons are not part of the judgment; appellate review addresses the judgment itself)