MAYEHAUL TRUCKING LLC ET AL v. SASOL CHEMICALS LLC ET AL (2022)

I respectfully disagree that an affirmation is warranted in this case.

First, I believe that Plaintiffs have standing to assert a claim under the LUTPA. Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc., 2009-1633 (La. 4/23/10), 35 So.3d 1053. All five of Louisiana's intermediate courts of appeal have followed the plurality opinion in Cheramie and found that private parties have a right of action under the LUTPA. See Jones v. Americas Ins. Co., 16-904 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/16/17), 226 So.3d 537; Bogues v. Louisiana Energy Consultants, Inc., 46,434 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/10/11), 71 So.3d 1128; J.A. Davis Properties, LLC v. Martin Operating Partnership, LP, 17-449 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/21/17), 224 So.3d 39; Prime Ins. Co. v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 14-323 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/1/14), 151 So.3d 670; and Hurricane Fence Co., Inc. v. Jensen Metal Products, Inc., 12-956 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/23/13), 119 So.3d 683.

Second, a cause of action under the LUTPA does not require a valid, enforceable contract. Nor does a cause of action for detrimental reliance require a valid, enforceable contract. Morris v. People's Bank & Trust Co. of Natchitoches, 580 So.2d 1029 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 588 So.2d 101 (La.1991).

Third and finally, Plaintiffs’ petition nevertheless fails to sufficiently state a cause of action under the LUTPA. The petition also fails to state a cause of action for detrimental reliance. Thus, the issue is whether “the grounds of the objection pleaded by the peremptory exception may be removed by amendment of the petition[.]” La.Code Civ.P. art. 934. In my view, Plaintiffs must be afforded the opportunity to amend.

In sum, I dissent from the result reached by my esteemed panelists. The case should be remanded not dismissed.

FITZGERALD, Judge, dissenting with reasons.