198 So. 3d 1272
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Gina Lusich, an at-will branch manager at Capital One, was terminated on June 22, 2013; she sued Capital One ACP, LLC and her supervisor Cindy Martin for wrongful termination, defamation, and tortious conversion.
- Lusich alleged she was falsely accused of instructing employees to falsify time cards and that Capital One retained personal documents from her desk after termination.
- Defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action to Lusich’s petitions; the trial court initially denied the exception to the original petition, permitted amendment, and after two amendments sustained the exception to the second amended petition and dismissed the claims. Lusich’s motion for new trial was denied. She appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed the exception of no cause of action de novo, accepting well-pleaded facts as true and asking whether the petition on its face afforded a legal remedy.
- Court analyzed each claim: wrongful termination failed because Lusich conceded at-will status and did not plead any statutory or discrimination-based exception; defamation failed for lack of specificity about the allegedly defamatory statements and recipients; conversion failed because the retained items were described as employment-related documents, not clearly Lusich’s personal property.
- The court affirmed the dismissal and declined to require or permit further amendment because defects could not be cured by amendment after multiple opportunities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition stated a wrongful termination claim | Lusich: termination was unlawful and violative of civil rights because defendants made false accusations and gave perjured testimony | Capital One: Lusich was an at-will employee and offered no facts showing discharge violated statutory or constitutional protections | Dismissed — at-will rule applies; no allegation of protected class or exercise of statutory right |
| Whether the petition stated a defamation claim | Lusich: defendants made false, libelous per se statements implying she was a thief and instructed timecard falsification | Capital One: allegations are conclusory and fail to identify specific statements or recipients | Dismissed — petition lacks required specificity about defamatory statements and third-party publications |
| Whether the petition stated a tortious conversion claim | Lusich: personal files and documents taken from her desk were not returned and constitute conversion | Capital One: items described are employment-related documents, not clearly plaintiff’s personal property | Dismissed — allegations show property was employment-related; plaintiff failed to plead possessory right to items |
| Whether court should have allowed further amendment or converted exception to vagueness | Lusich: court should have permitted another amendment under La. C.C.P. art. 934 or converted the exception to vagueness | Capital One: plaintiff already had multiple chances; defects are incurable by amendment | Dismissed — court did not abuse discretion; grounds could not be cured by further amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 929 So.2d 1211 (La. 2005) (standard for reviewing no-cause-of-action exceptions)
- Jackson v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, 785 So.2d 803 (La. 2001) (accept well-pleaded facts as true on no-cause-of-action review)
- Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical Co., 820 So.2d 542 (La. 2002) (exceptions to at-will employment rule identified)
- Costello v. Hardy, 864 So.2d 129 (La. 2004) (elements of defamation)
- Fitzgerald v. Tucker, 737 So.2d 706 (La. 1999) (defamation pleadings must specify statements and recipients)
- Melerine v. O’Connor, 135 So.3d 1198 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (conversion requires intentional dispossession or exercise of dominion inconsistent with owner’s rights)