73 So. 3d 407
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mendonca, pro se, sued Tidewater in Orleans Parish seeking damages for alleged 1999 Dubai employment termination and tortious interference with a UAE contract.
- Lower courts dismissed all claims against Tidewater except a potential tort claim; Tidewater II later granted summary judgment on the tort claim.
- Mendonca pursued multiple nullity actions to revive his claims and to annul judgments, typically proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel.
- Trial court sustained Tidewater's peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata, granted Article 863 sanctions, and revoked Mendonca's in forma pauperis status.
- On appeal, Mendonca challenges (i) nullity action under Article 2005, (ii) Article 863 sanctions, and (iii) revocation of in forma pauperis status under Article 5181.
- The Fourth Circuit affirms, holding Article 2005 precludes the nullity action, upholding sanctions, and sustaining the revocation of in forma pauperis status as a proper sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article 2005 bar Mendonca's nullity action? | Mendonca argues Article 2005 does not preclude his nullity petition. | Tidewater contends the nullity action is barred since Tidewater I was an appellate decision and Mendonca seeks to annul it. | Precluded by Article 2005; grounds were considered or implicit in appellate record. |
| Are sanctions under Article 863 warranted for Mendonca's pleadings? | Mendonca contends sanctions are improper or excessive. | Tidewater asserts Mendonca's repeated filings constituted abuse and justified sanctions. | Sanctions affirmed; evidentiary findings not clearly erroneous. |
| Was revocation of Mendonca's in forma pauperis status proper under Article 5181? | Mendonca challenges the revocation as improper. | Tidewater argues ongoing frivolous filings justified revocation to deter abuse. | Affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., 862 So.2d 505 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2003) (early dismissal and procedural history guiding later rulings)
- Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., 933 So.2d 233 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment on tort claim affirmed)
- New Orleans Redevelopment Authority v. Lucas, 881 So.2d 1246 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2004) (Article 2005 grounds when not considered by appellate court)
- Zeno v. Flowers Baking Co., 62 So.3d 303 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2011) (Article 863 sanctions as remedy to prevent abuse)
- Roy v. Gulf States Utilities Co., 307 So.2d 758 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1975) (court's authority to monitor in forma pauperis to prevent abuse)
- Benjamin v. National Super Markets, Inc., 351 So.2d 138 (La. 1977) (liberal construction of in forma pauperis provisions)
- Derouin v. Champion Ins. Co., 580 So.2d 1043 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1991) (reasonableness standard for Article 863 sanctions)
- Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1988) (trial judge's knowledge as factor in evaluating sanctions)
- Loyola v. A Touch of Class Transp. Service, Inc., 580 So.2d 506 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1991) (objective inquiry required despite pro se status)