118 So. 3d 442
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Zeigler, individually and on behalf of Inspeq, sued for defamation, LUTPA, conspiracy, and related claims against HANO, Muhammad, MFR, Jones, Blaylock, and others, with republication by Gilmore Kean and Edgemere in an HANO operational assessment.
- Inspeq was awarded a voucher program inspection contract in August 2007; Muhammad became Voucher Program Administrator and later COO; contract expired November 8, 2009.
- MFR obtained an emergency no-bid contract to perform Displaced Housing Program tasks; Inspeq had a sub-contract; MFR allegedly delayed payments to pressure Inspeq; Jones is married to Muhammad.
- Plaintiff alleges a scheme to replace Inspeq by MFR, including false HUD reports, no-bid takeover in 2009, and concealed marriage to influence the procurement and contracts.
- In 2010–2011, Edgemere/Gilmore Kean interview and the February 2010 operational assessment published false statements, leading to the defamation suit; trial court granted peremption, prescription, and no-action exceptions, which the appellate court partially reversed and remanded.
- The appellate court affirmes personal claims dismissal, but reverses in part on LUTPA, defamation, conspiracy, and vicarious liability, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Zeigler in personal capacity | Zeigler has personal standing to pursue damages for Inspeq. | Zeigler lacks standing to sue personally for Inspeq’s damages. | Zeigler has no personal standing to sue for Inspeq’s damages. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress viability | Zeigler/personal claim should survive. | No state action for this claim. | No state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; upheld dismissal. |
| LUTPA timing and peremption | LUTPA claims accrued post-2009 and were timely despite 2010 amendments. | LUTPA claims were perempted; accrual rules apply. | Trials court erred in perempting timely LUTPA claims; claims not perempted. |
| Defamation viability and publication | Defamatory statements were published and republished through the operational assessment; liable for defamation. | Publication was not proven against each defendant; privilege may apply. | Defamation claims stated; republication via the operational assessment supports liability; no absolute privilege bar. |
| Conspiracy viability and prescription | Conspiracy to defraud Inspeq existed and was timely. | Conspiracy claims either prescribe as to individuals or lack actionable basis. | Conspiracy against HANO and MFR viable and not prescribed; individual-conspirator claims against Muhammad, Jones, Blaylock are perempted. |
| Vicarious liability of HANO | HANO liable for Muhammad’s acts in course of employment. | No basis to impute liability. | Sufficient allegations to defeat no-cause/none action on vicarious liability; remand for merits on scope of employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Security Center for Protection Services, Inc. v. All-Pro Security, Inc., 650 So.2d 1206 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995) (strict construction against prescription; maintain enforcement favored)
- Louisiana Health Service v. Tarver, 635 So.2d 1090 (La. 1994) (prescriptive/peremptive interpretation in LUTPA context)
- Ames v. Ohle, 97 So.3d 386 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (conspiracy claims clarified; underlying torts control action)
- St. Pierre v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., 102 So.3d 1003 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (no-right/no-cause action standards; pleading standards)
- Cheramie Services, Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Production, Inc., 35 So.3d 1053 (La. 2010) (LUTPA standing; private right of action standards)
- Landrum v. Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District, 685 So.2d 382 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1996) (publication liability and defamation principles)
- Roberson v. August, 820 So.2d 620 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2002) (intentional infliction of emotional distress elements)
- Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, 935 So.2d 669 (La. 2006) (defamation presumptions related to per se statements)
- Morris v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 765 So.2d 419 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2000) (peremptive LUTPA accrual timing)
- Marsh Engineering, Inc. v. Parker, 883 So.2d 1119 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2004) (relation back and amendments in prescriptive contexts)
- Naghi v. Brener, 17 So.3d 919 (La. 2009) (preemption and relation-back limitations)
- Scott v. American Tobacco Co. Inc., 949 So.2d 1266 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2007) (prescription and accrual in contract-related actions)