BOUTIQUE DU VAMPIRE APOTHECARY LLC v. FOX CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND DIVISIONS FOX SPORTS FOX SPORTS LLC AND THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS (2026)

Boutique du Vampire Apothecary, LLC (“Apothecary”) seeks review of the district court judgment granting the Fox Corporation and its subsidiaries and divisions, Fox Sports, and Fox Sports 1, LLC's (“Fox”) Exception of No Cause of Action. Finding that Apothecary sufficiently stated a cause of action in its petition, we reverse and remand the lower court's judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This suit arises from Fox's activities surrounding production and broadcasting of Super Bowl LIX television coverage in New Orleans. From about January 31 to February 11, 2025, Fox televised pre-game and post-game news and entertainment from the French Quarter. Fox secured the necessary permits ¹ from the City of New Orleans to place equipment in the public right of way and to close stretches of Bourbon Street and St. Peter Street to vehicular traffic from February 3 to February 11, 2025.

Apothecary owns and operates a bar in the French Quarter near the intersection of Bourbon Street and St. Peter Street. According to Apothecary, Fox's production equipment and activities disrupted access to its business and caused it to sustain financial losses.

In its petition, Apothecary alleged that Fox's “placement, storage, and use of production equipment ․ on the public street and sidewalks of St. Peter Street between Royal and Bourbon streets resulted in the denial of customer and employee access to [its] premises, disruption of its normal course of business, and financial loss.” Further, Apothecary enumerated, in its Petition, various provisions of the New Orleans City Code, state statutes, and the City of New Orleans Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and alleged that Fox violated these local and state laws:

․

3.

The Apothecary's business was severely impacted by Fox's Super Bowl LIX production activities on Bourbon Street, from Sunday February 1, 2025 through Tuesday, February 11, 2025, as more fully set forth below.

4.

More particularly, Fox's placement, storage, and use of production equipment (including “porta-potties”) on the public street and sidewalks of St. Peter Street between Royal and Bourbon streets resulted in the denial of customer and employee access to the Apothecary's premises, disruption of its normal course of business, and financial loss.

5.

Additionally, beyond the physical obstruction of the public rights of way, depicted in the images incorporated below, Fox agents denied public access to St. Peter Street and the Apothecary.

5. [sic]

Fox's activities violated the provisions of local and state law, including but not limited to:

New Orleans City Code Section 146-37 providing that:

No person shall obstruct or cause to be obstructed any public right-of-way for any purpose whatsoever unless authorized pursuant to this code and permitted to do so by the department of public works, as prescribed in section 146-583.

New Orleans City Code Section 146-493 providing that:

It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or judicial, to deposit, encumber, obstruct, or cause to be obstructed any street, gutter, sidewalk, public space parallel to any sidewalk, entrance or window of any building, or any other public place or right-of-way (hereafter rights-of-way), by depositing, storing or placing any article whatsoever that prevents or impedes the free and proper use of the rights-of-way.

New Orleans City Code Section 146-494 providing that:

It shall be unlawful for any person to obstruct or cause to be obstructed any public space parallel to any sidewalk including linear streets, public rights-of-way, public alleys or any entrance or window of any building so as to prevent the free and proper use thereof.

Louisiana Revised Statute 14:100.1 providing that:

No person shall willfully obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of any public sidewalk, street, highway, bridge, alley, road, or other passageway, or the entrance, corridor, or passage of any public building, structure, water craft, or ferry, by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding, or restraining traffic or passage thereon.

6.

. Further, Section 10.2.A of the City of New Orleans Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does not permit “broadcast studio” or “live performance” uses in the VCC 2 zoning district where Fox's broadcast production activities and live performances occurred.

7.

On information and belief Fox asserts it operated under the purported authority of “parking meter leases” permits and so-called “dumpster” permits issued by the City of New Orleans under City Code Sections 14-584 and 14-585, however, said “dumpster permits” are authorized, confined and limited to “trash containers, receptacles, other similar containers and dumpsters” and not the broadcast production equipment and “porta-potties” deployed by Fox.

8.

On information and belief Fox also asserts that it operated under the authority of a “film permit” issued by the City of New Orleans. However, under the “film permit” Fox was obligated to comply with “all applicable laws” under City Code Section 30-1708, including obtaining the “the [sic] necessary sub-permits and insurance requirements” and to subscribe to indemnity obligations to the City of New Orleans under City Code Section 30-1708.

9.

Further, Fox was obligated to follow the City of New Orleans “Film New Orleans Policies and Procedures,” but failed to [do] so in the following particulars: the required “schematics” submitted by Fox to the City did not accurately or fully illustrate the rights of way impeded; street and sidewalk closures were enforced by Fox agents rather than the required OPSO or NOPD officers; and Fox's production interfered with the delivery of city services including waste collection, street cleaning, scheduled deliveries, and access to property.

10.

Fox also violated the dates and times of its street and sidewalk closures as announced in its “Dear Neighbor” letter by extending said closures a day beyond that announced (February 11, 2025) and by exceeding the time duration of the closures, often 24 hours a day.

11.

Under the aforesaid circumstances Fox is at fault and liable to the Apothecary for financial damage and losses in an amount less than $75,000, due to Fox's Super Bowl LI[X] Broadcast production activities in an amount to be determined, established and evidenced at trial.

Fox filed Exceptions of No Right of Action and No Cause of Action. In its Exception of No Right of Action, Fox alleged that Apothecary had no right of action because none of the laws referenced in its petition provide for a private right of action, but rather vest enforcement authority in a particular City or State body, so Apothecary is not the person for whom the law extends a legal remedy. In its Exception of No Cause of Action, Fox asserted that Louisiana courts have consistently held that business disruption from road closures is not actionable. Further, Louisiana courts routinely grant the exception of no cause of action against petitions that do not adequately allege required elements of a tort action.

The district court issued its judgment with reasons on September 25, 2025, overruling the Exception of No Right of Action but maintaining the Exception of No Cause of Action. In overruling the Exception of No Right of Action, the court found that Apothecary had the right to bring its negligence claim for disruption of business and the subsequent loss of business income. Nonetheless, in maintaining the Exception of No Cause of Action, the court found that Apothecary did not adequately establish a legal duty for Fox within its petition, a necessary element of a negligence claim. Apothecary merely alleged that Fox violated multiple New Orleans City Code articles, state statutes, and the New Orleans Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; Apothecary did not “assert[ ] any legal authority under which [Fox] would have a legal duty to [Apothecary].”

The court determined that Apothecary not only failed to establish a legal duty for Fox within its petition, but that based on the facts of this case, “there is no valid amendment [Apothecary] can make to its Petition that would establish a duty for [Fox].” Thus, in maintaining Fox's Exception of No Cause of Action, the court did not allow Apothecary an opportunity to amend its petition to state cause of action.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Apothecary submits multiple assignments of error on appeal, summarized as follows:

1. The district court erred in determining that the allegations in the original petition presented no cause of action.

2. The district court erred in determining that Fox owed no legal duties to Apothecary under the City's permitting scheme.

3. The district court erred in assuming that the City's permitting scheme was valid as applied to the circumstances presented; the permitting scheme, as applied, granted authority where none was provided for and represents ad hoc and de facto rulemaking, falling short of the promulgation requirements of the New Orleans Home Rule Charter and City Code.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The standard of review for an exception of no cause of action is de novo. Appellate courts review a judgment on an exception of no cause of action using the de novo standard of review ‘because the exception raises a question of law and the trial court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition.’ ” Carollo v. Tulane University, 2024-0038, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/9/25), 414 So. 3d 610, 615 (citing Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987, p. 4 (La. 11/28/01), 801 So. 2d 346, 349).

When ruling on “an exception of no cause of action a court can consider only the petition, any amendments to the petition, and any documents attached to the petition․ Additionally, “[t]he grant of the exception of no cause of action is proper when, assuming all well pleaded factual allegations of the petition and any annexed documents are true, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks as a matter of law.”

Palmer v. Crescent City Auction Gallery, LLC, 2025 WL 3442626, 2025-0391, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/1/25), --- So. 3d --- (internal citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

The central focus of our analysis is whether Apothecary's petition sufficiently alleged that Fox owed a duty and there was a breach.

Apothecary argues that the denial of access to its premises breached Fox's legal duty to minimize the disruption created by its activities. Apothecary further alleges that the petition indeed set forth valid causes of action for damages based on the obstruction of public rights of way. Apothecary recognizes that Fox's permits conferred approval to close the streets, but they offered no authority for barricading, blocking, and closure of the sidewalks, as plead and depicted in the original petition. Apothecary asserts that Fox had duties to: act in conformity with applicable law, with its permits, and with City policies and procedures so as to minimize Fox's disturbance and disruption of Apothecary's business; not interfere with delivery of city services or access to property for our residents; avoid the obstruction of sidewalks (as noted in its “dear neighbor letter,” which stated “the sidewalks will always remain open and accessible to pedestrians”); and to employ Orleans Parish Sheriff or New Orleans Police Department officers rather than using its own agents to bar and control access to Apothecary's business.

Fox contends that neither city ordinances nor Louisiana law provide a cause of action under the allegations set forth in the petition. First, Louisiana law does not recognize a negligence per se cause of action for violating permits; violations can only provide support for finding of a breach of duty in tort. As for a negligence cause of action, Fox alleges that a duty to Apothecary cannot be identified from the alleged facts. Even if Apothecary could show that the City of New Orleans has cited Fox with any statutory violations, this would not substitute for proving existence of unreasonable harm. Louisiana law does not recognize a cause of action for business disruption from road closures and parking restrictions, and Apothecary does not have the right to enforce the City's ordinances. Lastly, assuming, arguendo, that the City's permitting process was invalid, Fox is still not liable to Apothecary for operating in accordance with those permits. Rather, Apothecary must show that Fox's procurement of those permits amounted to a breach of an independent duty that Fox owed specifically to Apothecary.

Fox emphasizes a policy consideration, averring that allowing a plaintiff to bring suit after a temporary permit blocks a public right of way would lead to numerous claims for damages after every French Quarter event, even if the organizers obtained the proper permits.

“The purpose of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy based upon the facts alleged in the petition.” Neville v. LCMC Health Holdings, Inc., 2024-0305, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/5/25), 418 So. 3d 1057, 1059 (quoting Veroline v. Priority One EMS, [20]09-1040, p. 4 (La. 10/9/09), 18 So. 3d 1273, 1275). “[A]ll well-pleaded facts in the petition are accepted as true for purposes of determining the issues raised by an exception of no cause of action.” Green v. Phipps-Green, 2025-0006, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/19/25), 416 So. 3d 1, 7 (quoting Petkovich v. Franklin Homes, Inc., [20]21-0448, p. 28 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/22/22), 349 So. 3d 1042, 1062) (alteration in original).

Therefore, if Apothecary alleged in its petition facts supporting the existence of a duty and breach for a negligence cause of action, then we must reverse the lower court's grant of the exception of no cause of action.

Established Louisiana jurisprudence employs a duty-risk analysis to resolve negligence claims under La. C.C. art. 2315. Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So. 2d 1032, 1041 (La. 1991). To prevail under a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove five elements:

(1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard (the duty element);

(2) the defendant failed to conform his conduct to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty element);

(3) the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries (the cause-in-fact element);

(4) the defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries (the scope of liability or scope of protection element); and

(5) actual damages (the damages element)[.]

Harris v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., LLC, 2020-0248, p. 20 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/26/21), 322 So. 3d 397, 412 (quoting Roberts, 605 So. 2d at 1051).

“While statutory violations are not in and of themselves definitive of civil liability, they may be guidelines for the court in determining standards of negligence by which civil liability is determined.” Ducote v. Boleware, 2015-0764 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/17/26), 216 So. 3d 934, 944 (citing Burns v. CLK Investments, [20]10-0277, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/10), 45 So. 3d 1152, 1158) (citation omitted). “Thus, it is clear that even when the violation of a statute is proved, such is not a substitute for proving the existence of ‘an unreasonable risk of harm.’ ” Id.

Fox contends that Apothecary failed to allege the first element of a negligence cause of action in its petition, namely, Fox's duty. “The first element, the duty element, ‘is a question of law; the inquiry is whether the plaintiff has any law (statutory, jurisprudential, or arising from general principles of fault) to support the claim that the defendant owed him a duty.’ ” Id. (quoting Faulkner v. The McCarty Corp., [20]02-1337, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/11/03), 853 So. 2d 24, 27).

Apothecary alleged in its petition that Fox's failure to comply with their permits caused its business losses. Taking these allegations as true, we find that Apothecary's petition states a valid cause of action for negligence. The City of New Orleans’ issuance of the permits to Fox created a duty to perform its activities in accordance with the constraints delineated in the permits. Apothecary clearly alleged in its petition that Fox failed to comply with their permits, citing specific provisions and identifying which actions by Fox were not in compliance.

Neither the trial court nor this Court can consider whether Apothecary “will prevail on the merits of the trial.” Rather, a court must consider the sufficiency of the petition and determine whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition. See Palmer, 2025 WL 3442626, 2025-0391, p. 2. If Fox indeed violated their permits, the law indeed affords Apothecary a remedy: to be awarded damages for its losses incurred due to Fox's activities.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court erred in sustaining Fox's exception of no cause of action. On remand, the trial court must consider the facts of this case to determine whether Fox breached the duty conferred upon them by the permits.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

FOOTNOTES

1.   Fox secured from the City of New Orleans a film certificate and four right of way permits. Fox also sent the required neighborhood filming location notification to surrounding residents and businesses.

Judge Rachael D. Johnson