Two Canal Street Investors, Inc. v. New Orleans Building Corp., 212 So. 3d 611

New Orleans Building Corporation awarded a lease to Carpenter & Company/Woodward to redevelop 2 Canal Street; Two Canal Street Investors, Inc. (TCSI) bid and ranked last.
After rejection, TCSI was sold to Stuart Fisher for $10 (April 18, 2015); TCSI filed suit April 23, 2015 challenging the selection process and sought injunctive relief (denied on appeal).
Defendants sought Fisher’s deposition; TCSI resisted and contested compulsion; Fisher briefly resigned/returned as president amid discovery pressures.
TCSI’s counsel moved to withdraw (October 2016); the trial court granted withdrawal after an in camera review and set an expedited trial date under La. R.S. 41:1215; TCSI received notice but failed to appear at the exception hearing and trial.
Trial court dismissed TCSI’s suit with prejudice under La. C.C.P. arts. 1672, 1471 and granted defendants’ exception of no right of action (finding TCSI was a corporation in name only and Fisher lacked standing); appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in allowing counsel to withdraw	Withdrawal caused prejudice and deprived TCSI of representation	Withdrawal was for good cause; TCSI had notice and time to retain new counsel	No abuse of discretion; withdrawal properly allowed
Whether applying amended La. R.S. 41:1215 violated due process	Statute’s expedited timelines deprived TCSI of due process	Statute applies to leases after effective date; applies here and was properly applied	Constitutional challenge not preserved; statute properly applied if considered
Whether TCSI had right of action under La. R.S. 41:1215	TCSI argued it could pursue the challenge despite corporate irregularities	Defendants argued only an ‘‘unsuccessful bidder’’ with real interest may sue; Fisher/TCSI lacked participation/interest	Court pierced corporate veil, found no real interest; dismissed for lack of right of action
Whether dismissal with prejudice and sanctions were proper	Dismissal/sanctions were excessive and erroneous	TCSI repeatedly failed discovery, avoided deposition, failed to appear at trial; prejudice to defendants	Affirmed: dismissal with prejudice and sanctions justified under CCP arts. 1672, 1471, 927

State v. Brown, 907 So.2d 1 (La. 2005) (trial-court discretion review for withdrawal of counsel)
State v. Leger, 936 So.2d 108 (La. 2006) (standards for appellate review of trial-court discretion)
Abuan ex rel. Valdez v. Smedvig Tankships, Ltd., 786 So.2d 827 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (constitutional challenges to statutes must be pleaded in trial court)
Glazer v. Comm’n on Ethics for Pub. Employees, 431 So.2d 752 (La. 1983) (piercing corporate veil analysis)
State in Interest of K.C.C., 188 So.3d 144 (La. 2016) (function of exception of no right of action)
O’Rourke v. Nora’s Creole Cafe, 854 So.2d 976 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2003) (dismissal for failure to appear reviewed for abuse of discretion)
At Your Serv. Enterprises, Inc. v. Swope, 4 So.3d 138 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2009) (failure to appear and comply with discovery can justify dismissal with prejudice)