Louisiana Crisis Assistance Center v. Marzano-Lesnevich
878 F. Supp. 2d 662
E.D. La.2012Background
- LCAC sued Marzano-Lesnevich in state court alleging breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract for disclosing confidential information from LCAC client matters.
- Defendant removed to federal court and moved to strike under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 971 (anti-SLAPP).
- The district court denied the motion, holding that Article 971 could be used to strike the entire lawsuit based on a single merits showing.
- Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing Article 971 can target harms or remedies separately and that injunctive relief is not a separate cause of action.
- The matter was treated as a Rule 59(e) motion because it was filed within 28 days of the order; the court granted in part and denied in part reconsideration, vacating the prior order to the extent it erred on statutory interpretation.
- LCAC’s motion for attorney’s fees was denied as moot following the reconsideration decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Article 971: strike a claim or the entire suit | LCAC contends Article 971 can strike the underlying claims and is not limited to a blanket dismissal. | Marzano-Lesnevich argues Article 971 should function as an all-or-nothing remedy, striking the suit in its entirety. | Article 971 can strike a single cause of action, not merely dismiss the entire suit. |
| Injunctive relief as a 'cause of action' under Article 971 | LCAC's injunctive relief arises from underlying claims and should be subject to anti-SLAPP analysis. | Injunctive relief is a remedy, not an independent cause of action, and thus not within Article 971’s scope. | Injunctive relief is not a separate cause of action under Article 971. |
| Prima facie showing under Article 971 | LCAC must show a probability of success on the merits of its claims to defeat the anti-SLAPP dismissal. | Defendant must show the suit arises from protected activity and that LCAC cannot show probability of success. | Prima facie showing must be applied to each asserted cause of action, not just the targeted remedy. |
| Burden-shifting framework interpretation | A plaintiff only needs to substantiate some claim to survive; any viable claim keeps the suit alive. | Each challenged claim must be independently shown to have a probability of success on the merits. | Correct interpretation requires evaluating probability of success on the merits for each asserted cause of action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darden v. Smith, 879 So.2d 390 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2004) (burden shifts to plaintiff to prove probability of success on each claim)
- Hebert v. La. Licensed Prof'l Vocational Rehab. Counselors, 4 So.3d 1002 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2009) (illustrates separate treatment of claims under anti-SLAPP analysis)
- Marlin v. Aimco Venezia, LLC, 154 Cal.App.4th 154 (Cal.Ct.App. 2007) (injunctions are not independent causes of action; anti-SLAPP applies to claims, not remedies)
- Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (Cal.Ct.App. 2010) (injunctive relief is not a separate cause of action under anti-SLAPP)
- Thomas v. City of Monroe, La., 833 So.2d 1282 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2002) (california and louisiana anti-SLAPP statutes are virtually identical)