Mindy Bowie v. Bayou Environmental Pest Control and Termite Services, LLC
2025 CW 0875
| La. Ct. App. | Nov 17, 2025
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

MINDY BOWIE NO. 2025 CW 0875
PAGE 1 OF 2
VERSUS

BAYOU ENVIRONMENTAL PEST
CONTROL AND TERMITE

SERVICES, LLC NOVEMBER 17, 2025

In Re: Mindy Bowie, applying for supervisory writs, 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
No. 756010.

BEFORE : MILLER, EDWARDS, AND FIELDS, Jd.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court’s July 24, 2025 judgment,
which granted Defendant’s, Bayou Environmental Pest Control and
Termite Services, LLC, Exceptions of Prematurity and No Cause of
Action, is reversed.

As to the exception of prematurity, the burden of proof is
on the defendant to establish that a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement exists. See Lafleur v. Law Offices of
Anthony G. Buzbee, P.C., 2006-0466 (La. App. Ist Cir. 3/23/07),
960 So.2d 105, 109
. If the defendant satisfies its burden of
proof establishing its right to arbitration, the burden then
shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate she did not consent to
arbitration.
Id.
 It is well-settled that a valid, written
arbitration agreement need not be signed by the parties. Rico v.
Cappaert Manufactured Hous., Inc., 2005-141 (La. App. 3d Cir.
6/1/05),
903 So.2d 1284
, citing Hurley v. Fox,
520 So.2d 467
(La. App. 4th Cir. 1988). Absent a signature, however, “the
effect or validity of the agreement may be shown by the actions
and conduct of the parties.” Rico,
903 So.2d at 1289
, citing to
Hurley,
520 So.2d at 469
. In this case, no evidence was
presented to establish that plaintiff consented to or was aware
of the arbitration agreement. The agreement relied on and
introduced into evidence by defendant herein was a contract
between defendant and the previous owner of the property, and
not plaintiff, Mindy Bowie. Thus, the defendant failed to
satisfy its burden that a valid and enforceable arbitration
agreement existed between it and plaintiff. Accordingly, the
trial court’s ruling granting the Exception of Prematurity is
reversed and the defendant’s Exception of Prematurity is denied.

As to the exception of no cause of action, at the time of
filing and judgment on this exception, the law provided that if
two or more items of damages or theories of recovery arise from
the operative facts of a single transaction or occurrence, a
partial judgment on an exception of no cause of action should
not be rendered to dismiss one item of damages or theory of
recovery. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South,
Inc.,
616 So.2d 1234, 1239
 (La. 1993). While we recognize that
La. Code Civ. P. art. 927(A) (5) was amended, effective August 1,
2025, to provide that a partial judgment sustaining an exception
of no cause of action may be appropriate when two or more
actions are based on the same operative facts of a single
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CW 0875
PAGE 2 OF 2

transaction, at the time of this judgment, the law prohibited

such a partial exception. Accordingly, the Exception of No Cause
of Action is denied.

SMM

BDE
WEF

_COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

dud BA Okcna

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT