RANDY LIVINGSTON v. LOUISIANA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION EDDIE BONINE AND VINCENT CACIOPPO (2026)

Relator, Randy Livingston, seeks expedited review of the trial court's April 11, 2026 judgment granting Respondents, Eddie Bonine and Vincent Cacippo's, peremptory exception of no cause of action. After consideration of the writ application before this Court and the applicable law, we grant the writ but, deny relief.

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

On December 14, 2023, Eddie Bonine, Director of the Louisiana High School Athletic Association (hereinafter “LHSAA”), issued a “charge letter” accusing Relator of violating LHSAA rules regarding recruiting. On March 21, 2024, Vincent Cacioppo, Director of Communications of LHSAA, issued a press release regarding the accusations against Relator. On December 13, 2024, Relator filed a “Petition for Defamation,” naming as defendants LHSAA; Mr. Bonine as “the Director of Louisiana High School Athletic Association;” and Mr. Cacioppo as “the Director of Communications for the Louisiana High School Athletic Association.” In the original petition Relator asserted that LHSAA, through Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo, issued false statements that Relator recruited students to play basketball at the high school where he was employed as the head coach. In response, Respondents filed an answer and an exception of no cause of action as to Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo individually, arguing that Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo were acting in the course and scope of employment when issuing the statements and therefore, could not be individually liable. The matter was considered by the trial court on October 9, 2025, at the conclusion of which the trial court denied Respondents’ exception of no cause of action and afforded Relator an opportunity to amend his petition to delineate specific allegations against Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo individually. On November 7, 2025, Relator filed “Plaintiff's First Supplemental and Amending Petition for Defamation.” Respondents subsequently re-urged their peremptory exception of no cause of action on the same grounds. By judgment dated April 11, 2026, the trial court granted Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo's exception of no cause of action. In its reasons for judgment, the trial court stated that the allegations asserted in the supplemental petition involved conduct by Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo in their official capacity as employees of LHSAA. The trial court noted that the supplemental petition “states legal and factual conclusions, or arguments while inserting the words ‘individually’ or ‘individual’ ” without providing factual support for the conclusions and arguments asserted. As a result of the trial court's judgment, LHSAA remains the sole defendant. This application for expedited supervisory review followed.¹

Discussion

This Court is tasked with determining whether Relator sufficiently pled an individual cause of action in his supplemental petition against Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo. Relator maintains that the statements made by Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo were done by them individually irrespective of their status as employees of LHSAA. “This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on an exception of no cause of action under the de novo standard of review.” Emery v. Ben, 2024-0018, p. 13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/13/24), 390 So.3d 952, 963 (citation omitted). “The pertinent inquiry is whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in the plaintiff's favor, the petition states any valid cause of action for relief.” Maw Enterprises, L.L.C. v. City of Marksville, 2014-0090, p. 6 (La. 9/3/14), 149 So.3d 210, 215 (citation omitted). “A peremptory exception of no cause of action questions whether the law affords a remedy against a particular defendant under the factual allegations of a petition.” Niang v. Dryades YMCA Sch. of Commerce, Inc., 2019-0425, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/4/19), 286 So.3d 506, 509 (citation omitted). “The purpose of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition.” Maw Enterprises, L.L.C., 2014-0090, p. 6, 149 So.3d at 215 (citation omitted). A trial court begins with the premise that all facts pled in the petition are true. Id. (citation omitted). In deciding an exception of no cause of action, a court considers the petition, any attachments to the petition, and any amendments to the petition. Niang, 2019-0425, p. 4, 286 So.3d at 509 (citation omitted). The mover carries the burden of demonstrating that a petition fails to state a cause of action. Maw Enterprises, L.L.C., 2014-0090, p. 6, 149 So.3d at 215. “However, the mere conclusions of the plaintiff unsupported by the facts do not set forth a cause of action.” Ross v. State through Univ. of Louisiana Sys., 2022-0382, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/18/22), 352 So.3d 90, 95 (citations omitted). La. C.C.P. art. 934 provides that “[w]hen the grounds of the objection pleaded by the peremptory exception may be removed by amendment of the petition, the judgment sustaining the exception shall order such amendment within the delay allowed by the court.” If the grounds of the objection “cannot be so removed, or if the plaintiff fails to comply with the order to amend, the action, claim, demand, issue, or theory shall be dismissed.” Id.

After Respondents filed the first exception of no cause of action, the trial court provided Relator with an opportunity to amend his petition to assert a cause of action against Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo individually. A party alleging a cause of action for defamation is required to set forth, in the petition, with reasonable specificity, the defamatory statement published by the defendant. Fitzgerald v. Tucker, 1998-2313, p. 7 (La. 6/29/99), 737 So.2d 706, 713. While the merits of the defamation claim are not before us, this Court must determine whether the supplemental petition states sufficient facts to assert a defamation claim, against Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo individually, under the law. See State ex rel, Tureau v. BEPCO, L.P., 2021-0856, p. 19 (La. 10/21/22), 351 So.3d 297, 311 (“[W]hether a plaintiff will prevail on the merits is not an appropriate consideration on an exception raising the objection of no cause of action.”). We find that it does not. In the supplemental petition, Relator did nothing more than insert the word “individually” to the allegations previously set forth in the original petition. Although Relator attempts to “add” new allegations in the supplemental petition, these “new allegations” simply reiterate that Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo individually performed actions directly tied to their respective employee roles with LHSAA. The supplemental petition added essentially no new substantive allegations and Relator merely inserted the prior pleading with conclusory assertions that Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo owed Relator an “individual duty.” Any statements made regarding Relator occurred in the course and scope of employment with LHSAA. The trial court afforded Relator an opportunity to amend the original petition to include specific allegations against Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo individually. The supplemental petition fails to do so as it does not allege specific facts which demonstrate that Mr. Bonine and Mr. Cacioppo acted outside the course and scope of their authority, so as to render them liable in their individual capacity. Further, we note that Relator has an adequate remedy on appeal. See Universal Servs. & Associates, LLC v. Grundmeyer, 2023-0196, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/12/23), 372 So.3d 821, 825 (“Generally, appellate courts decline to exercise their supervisory jurisdiction when an adequate remedy exists by appeal.” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, based on our de novo review, the trial court did not err in granting Respondents’ exception of no cause of action.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Relator seeks expedited supervisory review because the trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin on August 10, 2026.

Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase