ROY ANDERSON CORP v. 225 BARONNE COMPLEX (2023)

Although I agree with the result the majority reaches, I write separately to expound on the justiciability of Franks Construction's claim. The majority correctly observes that the trial court did not err in denying the intervention given that “Franks Construction does not have a justiciable right because it does not seek to join in the original action of the suit but rather raises a separate cause of action.” Franks Construction's has already raised this separate cause of action—the disruption claim—in a separate suit, which has been stayed pending resolution of the instant case. And at oral argument, the parties admitted that Franks Construction has a right to bring the disruption claim in the separate suit. Thus, Franks Construction does not have a justiciable right to raise this separate cause of action through intervention in the instant suit.

LEDET, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS