LeBlanc v. PYNES
69 So. 3d 1273
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- LeBlanc and Shirey were Payday Money employees fired in Nov 2004; LeBlanc issued a self-written severance check and had outstanding loans.
- Mills investigated alleged 19 bogus loans across 16 customers and suspected internal theft by plaintiffs.
- Waites arrested LeBlanc and Shirey on May 3, 2005 for felony theft; they were jailed overnight and released on bail.
- Charges were nol prossed by the DA on Feb 13, 2006; plaintiffs filed malicious prosecution, defamation, and emotional distress claims May 1, 2006.
- Trial court found defendants liable for malicious prosecution and defamation; awarded damages; Cash Back later added as judgment debtor; ruling affirmed on appeal.
- Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding no manifest error and upholding damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malice and probable cause for prosecution | LeBlanc/Shirey lacked probable cause; defendants acted with malice. | Defendants believed theft occurred; evidence supported charges. | Yes, lack of probable cause and malice established. |
| Causation of prosecution by defendants | Arrest based on Mills's statements; no independent police investigation. | Officer relied on Mills; proximate cause maintained. | Chain of causation shown. |
| Bona fide termination of criminal proceeding | Nolle pros was a bona fide termination. | Termination independent of merits was needed. | Nolle pros constitutes bona fide termination. |
| Damages for malicious prosecution | Injury and wage loss, emotional distress; damages proper. | Challenge to specific damages as excessive. | Damages affirmed; awards within discretion. |
| Defendants’ privilege for reporting crime | Privilege does not shield false reporting when malice present. | Qualified privilege applies to reporting; no malice required. | Privilege rejected given malice and lack of probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Goudchaux's, 307 So.2d 287 (La. 1975) (probable cause and malice in malicious prosecution analyzed; arrest context)
- Hibernia Nat'l Bank of New Orleans v. Bolleter, 390 So.2d 842 (La. 1980) (definitional standards for malicious prosecution elements)
- Johnson v. Pearce, 313 So.2d 812 (La. 1975) (malice perversion of justice in criminal prosecutions)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error standard for reviewing fact findings)
- Banken v. Locke, 136 La. 155, 66 So. 763 (La. 1914) (proper termination of prior criminal action as element)
- Young Oil Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Durbin, 412 So.2d 620 (La.App.2d Cir. 1982) (probable cause focuses on defendant’s state of mind when bringing charges)
- Arledge v. Sherrill, 738 So.2d 1215 (La. App.2d Cir. 1999) (malice and evidentiary burden in malicious prosecution)