164 So. 3d 186
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Drennan, plaintiff-appellant, contracted with St. Charles Parish to replace metal culverts on Canal #10 after a bid process, and Drennan was the lowest bidder.
- The contract required engineer approval of each payment application before disbursement.
- Drennan submitted eight applications approved by the engineer; the ninth was approved but the Parish refused payment, claiming prior overpayments.
- In July 2012, Drennan sought a Certificate of Substantial Completion (issued March 2013); Parish made two partial payments but allegedly still owed $286,575.95.
- Drennan filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus under La. R.S. 38:2191(D) seeking payment of the full amount due under the contract.
- The Parish filed an exception of no cause of action; the trial court granted it, relying on general mandamus principles; Drennan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition states a cause of action for mandamus under 38:2191 | Drennan asserts mandamus is proper to compel payment on a public contract. | Parish contends mandamus is inappropriate because ordinary proceedings suffice under general law. | Yes; petition states a cause of action under 38:2191(D) mandamus applies. |
| Whether the trial court erred by focusing on disputed amounts rather than the mandamus framework | Merits of the amount owed are not needed to determine eligibility for mandamus. | Disputed amounts show lack of entitlement to payment. | Error to focus on disputed amounts; amount is for merits, not facial action eligibility. |
| Whether considering an additional, separate petition against the Parish during the exception was improper | Evidence related to a separate petition should be permissible to enlarge pleadings. | Rule prohibits evidentiary consideration outside pleadings in an exception. | Record showed enlargement of pleadings without objection; not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guidry v. Hanover Ins. Co., 28 So.3d 426 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2009) (de novo review; face-of-pleadings standard for no-cause-action)
- New Orleans Craft Temple, Inc. v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of Louisiana, 131 So.3d 957 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (no-cause-action inquiry; merits not reached on exception)
- Emigh v. West Calcasieu Cameron Hospital, et al., 145 So.3d 369 (La. 2014) (enlargement of pleadings by unobjected evidence may be allowed)
- Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C. v. Parish of Jefferson, 691 So.2d 751 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1997) (pleading/enlargement principles for no-cause-action)
- City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 739 So.2d 748 (La. 1999) (mandamus and public entity proceedings background)