206 So. 3d 1013
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Property Owners (N. Clark, L.L.C. and Kathleen Cresson) sued multiple defendants for property damage caused by construction of houses on neighboring lots (3505 Iberville and 223 N. Clark) and amended to add a possessory action and challenge to the City BZA permit decision.
- Hayes Architects designed the neighboring houses; plaintiffs alleged design defects (e.g., lack of gutter cans, projections too close to boundary, misleading driveway depiction) caused drainage, trespass, and servitude problems.
- Hayes filed a peremptory exception of no right of action; no evidence was introduced at the hearing and the trial court sustained the exception, dismissing Hayes with prejudice.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial and requested written reasons; the trial court denied the motion and issued written reasons relying solely on the pleadings.
- Trial court held plaintiffs lacked privity (no contractual claim) and failed to plead a tort duty owed to neighboring property owners by the architect; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was premature due to limited discovery | Court should allow discovery before deciding exception | Exception may be decided on pleadings; no statutory stay like summary judgment | Denied — exception properly decided on pleadings, not premature |
| Whether plaintiffs have a right of action against Hayes | Hayes owed duty to neighboring owners; tort claim exists for damage caused by defective design | No privity; plaintiffs pleaded contract-like harms and did not allege a duty in tort | Sustained — plaintiffs failed to plead tort duty; no right of action against Hayes |
| Whether Gurtler permits non-privity tort claims against architects here | Gurtler allows tort claims by third parties for damages caused by defective work | Hayes: Gurtler distinguishable (subcontractor vs. neighboring owner) and plaintiffs did not plead tort elements | Court: Gurtler distinguishable; plaintiffs pled professional negligence but not a tort duty to neighbors; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Hayes is a party needed for just adjudication under La. C.C.P. art. 641 | Hayes necessary to adjudicate BZA appeal and zoning conflicts tied to his plans | Hayes is not the property owner and not required for BZA appeal adjudication | Denied — Hayes not a necessary party for just adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Pierre v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, 102 So.3d 1003 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (standard of appellate review for exceptions of no right of action is de novo)
- Hood v. Cotter, 5 So.3d 819 (La. 2008) (exception of no right of action tests whether plaintiff is within class entitled to the remedy)
- JW Power Co. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Revenue & Taxation, 59 So.3d 1234 (La. 2011) (focus on whether the particular plaintiff has the right to bring the suit)
- Gurtler, Hebert & Co. v. Weyland Machine Shop, 405 So.2d 660 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1981) (permitting tort claims against architects by non-contracting parties where damage is distinct from defective work itself)
- NOLA 180 v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 94 So.3d 886 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (a petition that fails to state a cause of action supports dismissal on exception of no right of action)