BAYOU CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS TKTMJ CP (2021)

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.2021-05-12No. NO. 2020-CA-0353

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment granting the defendants' exceptions of prescription and peremption and dismissing Bayou's claims, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to allow consideration of the amended petition in connection with those exceptions.

Bayou Construction Group sued multiple defendants, alleging they conspired to wrongfully exclude it as a disadvantaged business enterprise subcontractor from a public dock project. The defendants filed various motions to dismiss based on prescription (statute of limitations), peremption (another form of time bar), and lack of cause of action. The trial court held a hearing on these motions in October 2019 but took some motions under advisement. After the hearing, Bayou filed an amended complaint clarifying its claims for fraud, breach of contract, and other relief, though without additional factual detail. The trial court then granted all the defendants' dismissal motions and dismissed the case entirely.

The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred in ruling on the prescription and peremption motions without considering Bayou's amended complaint. The appellate court reasoned that because the amended petition was filed after the hearing and therefore not part of the record before the trial court when those motions were decided, the nature and character of Bayou's claims could not be properly assessed. The court held that the unusual procedural sequence required vacating the dismissal and returning the case to the trial court to allow both sides to address the amended complaint in connection with the pending motions.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a trial court may rule on prescription and peremption exceptions without considering an amended complaint filed after the hearing on those exceptions
Whether the nature and character of a plaintiff's causes of action must be determined before ruling on statute of limitations defenses
Proper procedural sequence when a plaintiff amends its complaint after a hearing on dismissal motions

Procedural posture

Bayou appealed a trial court judgment dismissing its claims based on granted exceptions of prescription and peremption, after the trial court heard those exceptions but before ruling on them, and Bayou subsequently filed an amended complaint.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Plaintiff/appellant, Bayou Construction Group, LLC (“Bayou”), appeals the judgment rendered on December 20, 2019, and amended on January 2, 2020, by the Orleans Parish Civil District Court granting the exceptions of prescription filed by defendants/appellees, TKTMJ, Inc. (“TKTMJ”), the City of New Orleans (the “City”), and Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. (“Travelers”), and the exception of peremption filed by defendant/appellee, C.P. Grace & Associates, Inc. (“CP Grace”), (collectively “Defendants”), and dismissing Bayous claims against Defendants.

For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment that grants Defendants’ exceptions of prescription and peremption and dismisses Bayous claims against Defendants, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

On May 13, 2019, Bayou filed a petition for damages claiming that it was wrongfully excluded as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise subcontractor from the public bid project to replace docks of the Municipal Yacht Harbor and install a new, state-of-the-art floating dock system and a new two-story comfort station (“the Project”). The petition avers that Defendants “conspired to wrongly, fraudulently and/or illegally collude to exclude Bayou from the Project.”

TKTMJ, the City, and Travelers filed exceptions of prescription, no cause of action, and no right of action. CP Grace filed exceptions of peremption and no cause of action. The exceptions were heard on October 30, 2019.

During the course of the October 30, 2019 hearing, the district court ruled on some, but not all, of Defendants’ exceptions, which rulings were memorialized in a judgment signed on December 10, 2019. By the terms of the December 10, 2019 judgment, the district court denied CP Graces exception of no cause of action and denied TKTMJs exception of no cause of action. The district court granted the Citys exception of no cause of action and dismissed Bayous claims against the City and granted Travelers’ exception of no cause of action and partially granted Travelers’ exception of no right of action.

The judgment noted that the exceptions of prescription and peremption and TKTMJs exception of no right of action had been taken under advisement and would be addressed in a future ruling.

Also, at the October 30, 2019 hearing, the district court ruled that Bayou would be granted thirty (30) days to file an amending petition to cure the defects asserted in Travelers’ exception of no cause of action, which ruling was memorialized in the December 10, 2019 judgment.

On November 29, 2019, Bayou filed a Supplemental and Amending Petition for Damages (“Amended Petition”). Bayou clarified in the prayer of the Amended Petition that it was requesting damages from Defendants “for fraud, breach of contract, and all of the other actions of the defendants against Bayou ․ and all general and equitable relief.” However, the Amended Petition does not provide any additional particular facts with respect to Bayous tort fraud claim against Defendants.

On December 20, 2019, the district court issued a judgment, as well as reasons for judgment. By the terms of the judgment, the district court granted the exceptions of prescription filed by TKTMJ, the City, and Travelers, granted the exception of peremption filed by CP Grace, and dismissed all Bayous claims against Defendants. The judgment was amended on January 2, 2020 to correct a clerical error. Bayou timely perfected the present appeal appealing the December 20, 2019 and January 2, 2020 judgments.

The nature of causes of action set forth in a petition must be determined before ruling on an exception of prescription or peremption. See Ames v. Ohle, 11-1540, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 97 So.3d 386, 391(citing dela Vergne v. dela Vergne, 99-0364, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/17/99), 745 So.2d 1271, 1275). The character of an action or actions disclosed in the pleadings must be ascertainable. Id.

The Amended Petition was filed after the hearing on the exceptions and was not part of the evidence introduced at the October 30, 2019 hearing on the exceptions of prescription and peremption. Thus, the nature of the cause(s) of action cannot be ascertained for purposes of the exceptions filed by the parties. The unique procedural posture of the case requires this Court to vacate the district court judgment and remand for further proceedings to allow the parties to consider Bayous amended petition.

Therefore, we vacate the judgment granting Defendants’ exceptions of prescription and peremption and dismissing Bayous claims against Defendants, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.