131 So. 3d 957
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Four former/current members sued the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons and individual officers after being expelled, suspended, or reprimanded, alleging lack of jurisdiction, inadequate notice, arbitrary procedures, defamation, and breach of the Masonic Handbook (contract).
- Defendants filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action; trial court sustained them and dismissed the suit, holding courts generally should not interfere with private associations and that plaintiffs failed to plead falsity and damages for defamation.
- Plaintiffs amended their petition; appellate review is de novo on whether the petition, taken as true, states any actionable claim.
- Plaintiffs argued (1) wrongful expulsion/suspension/reprimand and breach of contract (the Handbook as contract), and (2) defamation by individuals (statements at lodge meetings) and the Grand Lodge (publication of disciplinary actions in its annual report).
- Appellate court reversed as to breach of contract and wrongful disciplinary claims (found adequately pled) and affirmed as to defamation claims (found missing malice as to individuals and falsity as to the Grand Lodge).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs stated a cause of action for wrongful expulsion/suspension/reprimand | Plaintiffs alleged lack of jurisdiction, inadequate notice, and arbitrary/capricious process in violation of Masonic rules | Courts should not interfere with internal affairs of private associations; Grand Lodge followed its procedures | Reversed — petition, taken as true, sufficiently alleges wrongful disciplinary action to state a cause of action |
| Whether the Masonic Handbook constitutes a contract and breach was pled | Handbook governs member rights/procedures and creates contractual obligations; defendants breached by not following it | No contract shown between parties | Reversed — plaintiffs sufficiently alleged existence of association rules as contract, breach, and damages |
| Whether plaintiffs stated defamation claims against individual defendants | Individuals accused plaintiffs of misconduct and enrichment; publication harmed reputations | Statements (discipline) were true or privileged; immunity asserted | Affirmed — petitions fail to allege actual/implied malice against individuals; claim deficient |
| Whether plaintiffs stated defamation claim against Grand Lodge for publishing disciplinary actions | Publishing the discipline caused false inferences about wrongdoing despite truth of the disciplinary fact | Publication of true disciplinary actions is not false; therefore no defamation | Affirmed — plaintiffs conceded the published disciplinary facts were true; falsity element missing |
Key Cases Cited
- Indus. Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 837 So.2d 1207 (La. 2003) (standard for exception of no cause of action and accepting well-pleaded facts)
- Jones v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 679 So.2d 381 (La. 1996) (courts usually do not interfere with private associations except for fraud, lack of jurisdiction, caprice, or discriminatory actions)
- Costello v. Hardy, 864 So.2d 129 (La. 2004) (elements of defamation — including falsity and malice — and definition of malice for defamation)
- Ermert v. Hartford Ins. Co., 559 So.2d 467 (La. 1990) (association laws/charter can constitute a contract among members)
- Jackson v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, 785 So.2d 803 (La. 2001) (pleading standards: well-pleaded allegations accepted as true on exception of no cause of action)