119 So. 3d 1
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Three attorneys and their firms dispute fee sharing from a class action; Manard seeks a share from the Lester case.
- Lester suit was filed December 20, 2002; Manard intervened April 2003 but was stayed because no fees had yet been awarded.
- Trial court split Lester claims into flights; French Jordan Flight plaintiffs settled before trial.
- Manard sought intervention again for a share of French Jordan Flight fees; Falcon/Buck moved to dismiss citing lack of contingency-fee contract.
- December 9, 2009 judgment dismissed Manard’s intervention as to French Jordan Flight with prejudice; Manard’s breach-of-contract suit followed.
- Trial court sustained lis pendens, stating the later breach suit was identical to intervention in Lester; Manard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lis pendens was proper | Manard argues the breach suit is not identical to Lester intervention and not barred. | Falcon/Buck contend the petitions are identical, so lis pendens applies. | Lis pendens reversed; not barred by res judicata. |
| Whether the records establish res judicata effect | Manard asserts no final judgment on his breach claims; intervention was limited to French Jordan Flight. | Defendants contend the final Lester judgment bars later claims arising from the same transaction. | Res judicata does not bar Manard’s non-contingency-fee claims; judgment not conclusive on those issues. |
| What prescriptive period governs Manard’s breach/quantum meruit claims | Manard argues ten-year prescription for breach/quantum meruit; not limited to services-rendered claim. | Defendants urge three-year service-rendered prescription under La. Civ. Code 3494(1). | Prescription issue not resolved on appeal; remanded for consideration of prescription. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estilette v. Rogers, 301 So.2d 372 (La.App. 4th Cir.1974) (test for lis pendens: same object of suits required)
- Glass v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation, 832 So.2d 403 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2002) (res judicata criteria for transactional matters)
- Guitreau v. Kucharchuk, 763 So.2d 575 (La. 2000) (standard of review for exceptions)
- Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So.2d 1049 (La. 2003) (five criteria for res judicata)
- Cochrane v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 905 So.2d 353 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (res judicata effect between parties)
- Duer & Taylor v. Blanchard, Walker, O’Quinn and Roberts, 354 So.2d 192 (La.1978) (joint venture breach is ten-year prescription)
- Bazile v. Arnaud Coffee Co., 465 So.2d 111 (La.App. 4 Cir.1985) (unjust enrichment prescription ten years)
- Dukes v. Matheny, 2002-652 (La.App. 1 Cir.2004) (fee division not by joint venture; quantum meruit apportionment)
- Brown v. Seimers, 726 So.2d 1018 (La.App. 5 Cir.1999) (quantum meruit framework for fee division)
- Matter of P & E Boat Rentals, Inc., 928 F.2d 662 (5th Cir.1991) (joint venture principles in fee sharing)