193 So. 3d 441
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Sonya Parker sued Tulane-Loyola Federal Credit Union in Civil District Court (the “CDC Suit”) for breach of contract and violations of the FCRA and FDCPA, alleging inaccurate credit reporting and improper collection relating to two loans (a $1,000 credit-rebuilder loan and a $435.43 loan).
- The Credit Union previously filed a Collections Suit in First City Court (Case No. 13-50821) to collect $435.43; Parker later filed a reconventional demand (counterclaim) in that Collections Suit asserting essentially the same factual allegations about inaccurate reporting and consumer fraud.
- The Credit Union filed a declinatory exception of lis pendens in the CDC Suit, arguing the CDC Suit involved the same transaction or occurrence and parties as the pending Collections Suit.
- At a hearing, the trial court found the CDC Suit and the reconventional demand concerned the same transaction or occurrence (inaccurate reporting to credit bureaus) and sustained the lis pendens exception, dismissing the CDC Suit without prejudice to Parker’s claims in the Collections Suit.
- Parker appealed; the Fourth Circuit reviewed the lis pendens exception de novo and affirmed, reasoning that the three lis pendens elements (multiple suits pending; same transaction or occurrence; same parties in same capacities) were satisfied and that Parker could amend her reconventional demand in City Court to assert the federal statutory claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting the declinatory exception of lis pendens (i.e., whether the CDC Suit and the Collections Suit involve the same transaction or occurrence between the same parties in the same capacities) | Parker contended her CDC Suit alleges separate misconduct (two different loans; distinct acts of fraud and reporting) and thus is not the same transaction or occurrence as the Collections Suit | Credit Union argued both suits arise from the same core facts—reporting inaccurate information about Parker’s account(s) to credit bureaus—and the parties are the same in their capacities (lender/borrower), so lis pendens applies | Affirmed. The court found all lis pendens elements satisfied; the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence (inaccurate reporting) and Parker may assert her federal claims by amending her reconventional demand in the pending Collections Suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aisola v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 180 So.3d 266 (La. 2015) (lis pendens test parallels res judicata; final judgment in first suit would be conclusive)
- Hy-Octane Investments, Ltd. v. G & B Oil Products, Inc., 702 So.2d 1057 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1997) (discussion of “transaction or occurrence” and guidance from federal law on scope of related events)
- First Bank & Trust v. Simmons, 165 So.3d 1025 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (articulation of lis pendens/res judicata elements)
- Zen-Noh Grain Corp. v. Thompson, 123 So.3d 777 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (use of federal counterclaim/transaction test for determining same transaction or occurrence)
- United Gen. Title Ins. Co. v. Casey Title, Ltd., 800 So.2d 1061 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2001) (res judicata/lis pendens framework cited by Louisiana courts)