Sun Coast Contracting Services, Inc. v. Dien's Auto Salvage, Inc.
148 So. 3d 964
| La. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Sun Coast and Dien’s Auto Salvage entered a Teaming Agreement to demolish a sugar mill, with profits and losses to be split equally.
- Sun Coast claimed job costs totaling $1,196,136.46 and alleged Dien’s had no job costs or reimbursements due under the agreement.
- Sun Coast sued in May 2013 and sought $598,068.23 plus interest and fees; Dien’s did not answer.
- A preliminary default was entered August 6, 2013; Sun Coast sought confirmation of default judgment and judgment was entered November 14, 2013.
- Dien’s argued an exception of no cause of action based on a claimed joint venture, asserting no action could lie until dissolution.
- The trial court addressed service of process, 1702.1 certification, and sufficiency of supporting documents; the default judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| No cause of action based on joint venture | Sun Coast asserts a conventional obligation exists despite joint venture defense. | Dien’s argues no action until joint venture is dissolved. | Exception overruled; petition does not show insurmountable defense. |
| Service of process validity | Proper service shown by sheriff’s return and May 30, 2013 service date. | Challenge to service not sustained by record. | Service proper; petition properly served on Dien’s. |
| Certification under 1702.1 for default | Certification not strictly required if documentary suffices; record supports default. | Certification should have accompanied the motion and judgment. | Failure to attach certificate not fatal; documents establish prima facie case. |
| Sufficiency of documents under 1702.1 and 1701 | Affidavits and attachments establish a prima facie case for a default judgment. | Record lacking certain identifications and specifics. | Record contains appropriate documentation; supports confirmation of default judgment. |
| Affirmative defense via no-cause-of-action exception in context of default | Petition states a claim on a conventional obligation. | Joint venture defense negates plaintiff’s remedy. | Pleading does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis; exception overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrell v. Carter, 577 So.2d 120 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1991) (burden of proving no cause of action; remedy available)
- City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Dir. of Louisiana State Museum, 739 So.2d 748 (La. 1999) (no-action standard and petitioner’s right to remedy)
- Palmer v. Vermillion Home Builders, LLC, 134 So.3d 1248 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2014) (joint venture analogy to partnership context)
- Carr v. Masters, 469 So.2d 1147 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1985) (affirmative defense analysis under no-cause-of-action)
- Sinegal v. Lafayette Parish Sheriffs Office, 139 So.3d 630 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2014) (affirms defense analysis and pleaded defense viability)
- Owens v. Martin, 449 So.2d 448 (La. 1984) (when an affirmative defense defeats no-cause action exception)
- Lambert v. Riverboat Gaming Enforcement Div., 706 So.2d 172 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1997) (no-cause of action exception standard applied)
- Weber Property Group, LLC v. Sunburst Media-Louisiana, LLC, 115 So.3d 40 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2013) (failure to attach certificate not fatal when record supports claim)