Nola 180 v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC
91 So. 3d 446
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- NOLA 180, as manager of Langston Hughes Academy Charter School, sues Treasure Chest Casino and Boyd Gaming for damages.
- Plaintiff alleges embezzlement by a former school officer led to losses, some of which were gambled at Treasure Chest.
- Treasure Chest moved to strike claims for no right and no cause of action; trial court sustained the exceptions.
- Consent judgment later revised discovery and amendment rights, and appellate review focused on the sufficiency of the petition.
- Court holds LUTPA and other theories fail; no duty of care or abuse of rights doctrine applies; affirming dismissal.
- Thompson’s later federal conviction is noted in the opinion but does not alter the state court ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| LUTPA viability | NOLA 180 seeks LUTPA relief for unfair practices. | Treasure Chest contends no LUTPA remedy extends to this non-consumer/competitor case. | LUTPA claim fails; loss did not arise from unfair or deceptive practices. |
| Duty of care to third party | Treasure Chest owed NOLA 180 a duty to prevent third-party harm from gambling activities. | No statutory duty to identify problem gamblers extends to third parties; no duty to third parties here. | No duty of care owed to NOLA 180; no patron, no injury on premises, no special relationship. |
| Abuse of rights | Treasure Chest abused its rights by fostering gambling losses. | No legitimate basis to invoke abuse-of-rights; gaming conduct was lawful business practice. | Abuse of rights doctrine inapplicable. |
| No right of action | petition states a viable action against Treasure Chest. | petition fails to state any action or right against defendants. | Peremptory exception of no right of action sustained; moot for lack of actionable claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Omni Bancshares, Inc., 69 So.3d 475 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (de novo review on peremptory exceptions)
- Ramey v. DeCaire, 869 So.2d 114 (La.2004) (nature of no-cause-of-action analysis)
- Cheramie Serv., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La.2010) (private LUTPA action expanded to all persons; two-prong test)
- Hernaez v. Mothe Life Ins. Co., 28 So.3d 454 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (unfair trade practices analysis; consumer/competitor view)
- Risk Mgmt. Serv., LLC v. Moss, 40 So.3d 176 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (LUTPA action traditionally limited to consumers/competitors)
- Davis v. Manpower Int’l, Inc., 623 So.2d 946 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1993) (private LUTPA action scope guidance)
- Schenck v. Living Ctrs.-East, Inc., 917 F.Supp. 432 (E.D. La. 1996) (LUTPA protections; private actions context)
- Morse v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 344 So.2d 1353 (La.1977) (abuse of rights doctrine origins)
- Steier v. Heller, 732 So.2d 787 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1999) (abuse of rights factors)