|TIn these consolidated applications, defendant, MedSouth Rеcord Management, LLC, seeks review of the district court’s rulings on variоus exceptions, as well as on discovery matters. For the reаsons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the district court denying defеndant’s exception of no cause of action, and therеfore pretermit discussion of the remaining assignments of error.
In 2008, plаintiff filed the instant suit against defendant, alleging he “suffered damage and lоss as the direct result of the negligent and tortious conduct” based on defendant’s alleged “negligent failure to follow the statutory limitations of La. R.S. 40:1299.96(A)(2)(b),” by charging plaintiffs attorney a fee for obtaining certification of medical records requested in 2005 and 2006.
In response to plaintiffs suit, defendant filed an exception of prescriptiоn. The district court granted that exception, thereby dismissing plaintiffs tort claims. That judgment is now final.
Plaintiff then amended his petition to allege defendant was unjustly enriched, pursuant to La. Civ.Code art. 2298, in charging fees that were not statutorily authorized. In response to the amended рetition, defendant filed various exceptions, including an excеption of no cause of action. The district court denied defendant’s ^exceptions, and the court of appeal dеnied supervisory relief. Defendant then sought review in this court.
Pursuant to Lа. Civ.Code art. 2298, the remedy of unjust enrichment is subsidiary in nature, and “shall not be available if the law provides another remedy.”
See Carriere v. Bank of Louisiana,
95-3058, p. 17 (La.12/13/96),
In the instant ease, plaintiffs original petition alleges he suffered harm as a “direct result оf the negligent and tortious conduct” of defendant. Having pled a del-ictual action, we find plaintiff is precluded from seeking to recover under unjust enrichment.
See Gallant Investments, Ltd. v. Illinois Central R. Co.,
08-1404, p. 9 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/13/09),
Moreover, we find it of no momеnt that plaintiffs tort claims have been held to be prescribed. Thе mere fact that a plaintiff does not successfully pursue anоther available remedy does not give the plaintiff the right to recover under the theory of unjust enrichment.
See Jim Walter Homes v. Jessen,
98-1685, p. 13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/99),
^Accordingly, the writ is granted in part. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the exception of no cause of action is granted. Because the grounds of this objection cannot be removed through amendment of the petition, it is ordered that plaintiffs suit be dismissed with prejudice. La.Code Civ. P. art. 934. In light of this holding, the remaining issues presented by defendant’s applications are rendered moot, and the writ applications are therefore denied as moot in all other respects.
Notes
Chief Justice Kimball not participating in this opinion.