DODSON HOOKS APLC v. LOUISIANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FUND INC (2020)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

On Writ of Certiorari to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, Parish of East Baton Rouge

Writ granted. Every reasonable interpretation must be accorded to the language of a petition in favor of maintaining a cause of action, and the burden of demonstrating that a petition states no cause of action is placed on the exceptor. See Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-0665, p. 7 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207, 1213, and City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 93-0690, p. 28 (La. 7/5/94), 640 So.2d 237, 253.

Here, plaintiff alleges a law firm formerly representing the plaintiff acted in “bad faith and/or with malice” in filing evidence of a claimed lien for attorney fees and costs into the record of an arbitral proceeding, which involved the plaintiff's efforts to collect an alleged debt. Plaintiff further alleges the law firm was similarly motivated when refusing to disavow a lien, thereby damaging the plaintiff by blocking a settlement and subjecting plaintiff to further losses imposed by a successful counterclaim by the alleged debtor in the arbitration.

A fair interpretation of these allegations is that the plaintiff invokes a cause of action under the civil law abuse of right doctrine. See Truschinger v. Pak, 513 So.2d 1151, 1154 (La. 1987) (noting recognition of abuse of right as a civilian cause of action available in “limited circumstances”); see also Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Nails, 549 So.2d 826, 829 (La.1989) (noting that as to contractual right, “if a party does not have a legitimate and serious interest in the exercise of the right, and to do so would bring unnecessary harm to another, the doctrine of abuse of rights will bar the exercise of the right”).

Without deciding whether the abuse of right doctrine is applicable in the specific context of efforts by a law firm to recover its costs and attorney fees, we find at this preliminary stage of this litigation that the defendant law firm has failed to carry its burden to show it does not. See City of New Orleans, 93-0690 at 28, 640 So.2d at 253.

The judgment sustaining the peremptory exception of no cause of action and dismissing the plaintiff's claims with prejudice is vacated. This matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Johnson, C.J., would deny. Weimer, J., would deny. Hughes, J., would deny.