Law Industries, LLC v. State of Louisiana, Department of Education, Recovery School District and Advanced Environmental Consulting, Inc., 378 So.3d 3

The State of Louisiana (Department of Education, Recovery School District) contracted Law Industries, LLC for elementary school refurbishment; asbestos abatement was subcontracted to Advanced Environmental Consulting, Inc. (AEC).
The State terminated the contract in July 2018 after a Department of Environmental Quality inspection found asbestos still present at the site.
Law Industries sued both AEC and the State for breach of contract in December 2018; AEC amended its answer in July 2021 to add a claim against the State under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (LUTPA).
The State filed exceptions arguing AEC’s LUTPA claim had no cause of action and was time-barred (“perempted” or prescribed); the trial court denied these exceptions.
The appellate court reversed in part, holding AEC's LUTPA claim was perempted, and dismissed it; AEC sought review by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ultimately held the LUTPA claim failed because the State’s actions were taken as a governmental function, not in “trade or commerce.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AEC stated a valid cause of action under LUTPA against the State	The State’s contract actions (withholding information, improper test reliance, lack of cure opportunity) amounted to unfair trade practices	State was performing a governmental function (not engaged in trade/commerce), thus not subject to LUTPA liability	No valid LUTPA claim; State not engaged in trade or commerce
Whether LUTPA’s time bar is peremptive or prescriptive	Period is liberative prescription (can be interrupted/suspended), not peremptive	Period is peremptive (claim extinguished after one year)	Question unnecessary; focus is on lack of cause of action
Whether the contract termination and alleged unfair conduct constitute actionable unfair trade practices	Unfair contract practices should be actionable under LUTPA	Actions were not egregious or in the conduct of trade/commerce	Contract disputes alone are not actionable under LUTPA if not in trade/commerce
Whether the appellate court should have addressed no cause of action before peremption	N/A (procedural)	Dismiss on lack of cause of action, not just peremption	Appellate court should first rule on cause of action

Ramey v. DeCaire, 869 So.2d 114 (La. 2004) (defines cause of action and standards for no cause of action exceptions)
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (articulates LUTPA legal standards and scope)
Montalvo v. Sondes, 637 So.2d 127 (La. 1994) (clarifies judicial review of exceptions of no cause of action)
Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (emphasizes narrow scope of LUTPA and distinction from breach of contract)
Copeland v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 822 So.2d 68 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (defines unfair trade practices and relevant standards)
Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. I.P. Petroleum Co., 144 So.3d 1011 (La. 2014) (further defines narrow scope of LUTPA applicability)