94 So. 3d 886
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- NOLA 180, manager of Langston Hughes Academy Charter School, sues Jazz Casino to recover embezzled funds by former CFO Thompson (~$667,000).
- Thompson, school financial officer, was convicted in federal court and is serving her sentence.
- NOLA 180 alleges Jazz Casino substantially participated in and aided Thompson's gambling–driven theft.
- Jazz Casino filed peremptory exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action; trial court sustained and dismissed claims.
- On appeal, court addresses whether petition states a cause/right of action, considering LUTPA and abuse of rights; record limits review.
- Court concludes casino immunity under statutes and lack of pleaded rights/causes of action foreclose relief; affirm dismissal and assign costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the petition state a valid cause of action against Jazz Casino? | NOLA 180 alleges tort, LUTPA, and equity theories against Jazz Casino. | Petition fails to plead a cognizable cause of action; statutory immunity applies. | No valid cause of action stated; granted. |
| Whether LUTPA claims were properly pleaded or reviewable on appeal | Plaintiff asserts LUTPA claims in petition. | LUTPA wasn't pled; cannot review untimely arguments. | LUTPA claims not reviewable; dismissed insofar as not pleaded. |
| Whether the abuse of rights doctrine was pleaded or reviewable | Abuse of rights theory pleaded in opposition brief, not in petition. | No abuse of rights claim in record; not reviewable. | Not reviewed; not pleaded in petition. |
| Whether La. R.S. 27:27.1(H) immunizes Jazz Casino from liability | Statute does not exculpate casino from alleged acts. | Statute provides immunity regarding identifying problem gamblers; no duty to identify. | Casino exempt from duty to identify problem gamblers; no liability pleaded. |
| Whether amendment or discovery could cure defects | Authorized amendment should be allowed to cure defects. | Amendment not permitted; discovery not required; vain and useless to amend. | Amendment not allowed; no cure for defects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 344 So.2d 1353 (La.1976) (abuse-of-right analysis referenced)
- City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 739 So.2d 748 (La.3/2/99) (no right-of-action standards; pleading sufficiency)
- Smith v. State Farm Ins. Companies, 869 So.2d 909 (La.App.4th Cir. 2004) (amendment considerations; discovery not required)
- Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents and Associates, Inc. v. Decatur Hotel Corp., 746 So.2d 806 (La.App.4th Cir. 1999) (standards for amending petitions; defective pleadings)
- Gates v. Hanover Ins. Co., 218 So.2d 648 (La.App.4th Cir. 1969) (not a fishing expedition in amending pleadings)
- Fortier v. Hughes, 15 So.3d 1185 (La.App.4th Cir. 2009) (amendment substance limitations)
- Mobile-One Auto Sound, Inc. v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 78 So.3d 807 (La.App.4th Cir. 2011) (review limited to record; pleadings presumed true on exception)