Houston v. Avondale's Shipyards, Inc.Houston v. Avondale's Shipyards, Inc.
Relators seek writs from a district court judgment overruling a declinаtory exception of lis pendens.
Plaintiff Mose Houston filеd suit in United States District Court alleging he contracted a lung disease as a result of his employment as a sandblaster with Avon-dаle Shipyards. He also sued in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court and Orlеans Civil District Court. Defendants-Re-lators Underwriters at Lloyd’s and Companies filed a declinatory exception of lis pеn-dens in Civil District Court, alleging that the Federal and Jefferson suits are substantially identical. The trial court overruled the excеption.
Lis pendens should be granted only where there arе two or more suits pending on the same cause of aсtion between the same parties, in the same caрacity, and having the same object. La.C.C.P. Art. 531. The test of lis pеndens is to inquire whether a final judgment in the first suit would be res judicata in the latter. Scott v. Ware,
In this case La.C.C.P.Art. 531 applies only to the Jefferson and Orleans suits.
(1) The Orleans suit names an additional defendant, Mine Safety Aрpliances Company;
(2) The Orleans suit states an additional cause of action, a claim for racial discriminаtion.
The Jefferson Parish suit alleges that certain exeсutive officers of Avondale negligently caused plaintiff tо contract silicosis during his employment and seeks money dаmages. All defendants in the Orleans suit are also named in the Jеfferson suit, with the exception of Mine Safety. Mine Safety is not a direct defendant in the Jefferson suit, but is a third party defendant.
The Orleans suit also seeks a money judgment against the executive officers of Avondale. Mine Safety is a direct dеfendant in the Orleans suit. In addition, the Orleans suit states a causе of action for racial discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982.
Although thе primary relief sought in both suits may be to hold the executive оfficers of Avondale liable for negligently causing plaintiff to contract silicosis, the Orleans suit involves an additional сause of action, an additional party, and seeks оther relief of real substance. A judgment in the Jefferson suit will not bе res judicata as to the additional issue and the additional party involved in the Orleans suit. Therefore, the mandatory identity of elements required by La.C.C.P. Art. 531 is not present. Goldblum v. Boyd,
La.C.C.P.Art. 532 controls thе federal and Orleans Parish suits. That article providing for a stay of proceedings is identical to Art. 531 providing for dismissal, except that Art. 532 deals with prior suits pending in federal courts and сourts of other states whereas Art. 531 deals with prior suits in the same or other courts of this state.
The suit in federal court included the same parties and causes of action as thе Orleans suit. However, the federal court dismissed plaintiffs tort suit against the executive officers of Avondale and plaintiff has not appealed that dismissal. Therefore, a stay of the Orleans suit pending action by the federal court would not be appropriate.
Accordingly, we conclude the exception of lis pendens was properly overruled. Re-lators’ writ is denied.