Zen-Noh Grain Corp. v. Thompson, 123 So. 3d 777

Zen-Noh and Justin Thompson entered multiple contracts for scrap grain: a written November 2011 Port Allen contract and four verbal December 2011 St. James contracts for scrap corn stored in St. James.
Dispute 1 (Rapides Parish): Thompson sued Zen-Noh alleging late delivery and that some grain was wetted; he sought damages for lost profits and removal costs. This related to hydro-blasted (wet) grain deliveries accepted through March 15, 2012.
Dispute 2 (St. James Parish): Zen-Noh sued Thompson for about $163,000, claiming Thompson picked up scrap corn under four December contracts but failed to pay in full.
Thompson filed an exception of lis pendens in the St. James case, arguing both suits arise from the same "transaction or occurrence."
The trial court sustained the lis pendens exception and dismissed Zen-Noh’s St. James suit. Zen-Noh appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson)	Defendant's Argument (Zen-Noh)	Held
Whether the Rapides and St. James suits arise from the same "transaction or occurrence" for lis pendens	The disputes are logically related; Zen-Noh’s breach in Rapides caused Thompson to withhold payment on the December contracts	The suits involve distinct facts, claims, and evidence; they do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence	Court held the suits do NOT arise from the same transaction or occurrence; lis pendens was improperly sustained
Whether Thompson’s compensation/setoff theory makes the suits the same transaction	Thompson: resolution of Rapides claim will offset amounts owed on December contracts, linking the suits	Zen-Noh: compensation requires liquidated, presently due sums; here neither claim is liquidated or presently due, so setoff is speculative	Court rejected the setoff/linking argument as insufficient to establish same transaction or occurrence
Standard of review for lis pendens exception	—	—	Abuse of discretion standard; court found trial court abused discretion in sustaining lis pendens

Hy-Octane Investments, Ltd. v. G & B Oil Products, Inc., 702 So.2d 1057 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1997) (discusses scope and meanings of "transaction or occurrence" in Louisiana procedure)
Durkin v. Quest, Inc., 724 So.2d 868 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1998) (applies federal four-part test for compulsory counterclaims to Louisiana context)
Park Club, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 967 F.2d 1053 (5th Cir. 1992) (federal analysis of when claims arise from same transaction or occurrence)
National Glass & Glazing, Inc. v. Grimaldi Construction, Inc., 680 So.2d 56 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1996) (compensation/setoff requires liquidated, presently due sums)
Rivers v. Bo Ezernack Hauling Contractor, LLC, 37 So.3d 1088 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2010) (standard of review for lis pendens is abuse of discretion)