Judgment rendered September 30, 2026.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.
No. 57,009-CW
COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
BREWER HOME CENTER, LLC Plaintiff-Respondent
versus
SUNSHINE HOMES, INC.,
INTEGRITY HOMES, LLC,
NATHAN RAZER, GARY
DOBBS, BOBBY WHITE,
BRADLEY WITT, BILLY
GENE BAREFIELD, TIMOTHY
DUPLANTIS, GULF SOUTH
HOMES, INC., JARED BASSET,
IAN RUMMINGS, RUMMINGS
RENOVATIONS, LLC, JUSTIN
HANCOCK, TREY ARCHER,
ARCHER SERVICES LLC,
JUSTIN S. FREELAND, AND
SIERRA LYNN MCFARLAND Defendants-Applicants
*****
On Application for Writs from the
Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Bossier, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 176,692
Honorable Michael O. Craig, Judge
*****
CARMOUCHE, BOKENFOHR, Counsel for DefendantsBUCKLE & DAY, PLLC Applicants, Justin S. By: Nicole M. Buckle Freeland, Sierra Lynn
McFarland, Integrity
Homes, LLC, Nathan
Razer, Gary Dobbs,
Bobby White, Bradley
Witt, Billy Gene
Barefield, and Timothy
Duplantis
SEABAUGH & SEPULVADO, LLC Counsel for PlaintiffBy: Michael C. Melerine Respondent, Brewer
Home Center, LLC
RON CHRISTOPHER STAMPS, LLC
By: Ron C. Stamps
DUKE LAW FIRM, LLC
By: Hannah D. Duke
E. CHARLES JACOBS
Attorney at Law
SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER Counsel for DefendantKLEIN & HILBERT, LLC Respondent, Sunshine
By: Thomas J. Madigan, II Homes, Inc.
CHRISTOPHER H. RIVIERE, APLC Counsel for DefendantBy: Evan M. Zizzi Respondent, Gulf South
Homes, Inc.
KEVIN W. HAMMOND, APLC Counsel for DefendantBy: Kevin W. Hammond Respondent, Jared Basset
*****
Before COX, HUNTER, and MARCOTTE, JJ.
COX, J.
This civil writ arises from the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court,
Parish of Bossier. Defendants, Integrity Homes, LLC, Nathan Razer, Gary
Dobbs, Bobby White, Bradley Witt, Billy Gene Barefield, Timothy
Duplantis, Justin S. Freeland, and Sierra Lynn McFarland (collectively, “the
Integrity Defendants”) seek review of the district court’s ruling denying their
peremptory exception of no cause of action, in favor of Brewer Home
Center, LLC (“Brewer”).
FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 16, 2025, Brewer, a licensed retailer of factory-built homes,
filed a petition for damages against 17 named defendants: the Integrity
Defendants, Ian Rummings, Rummings Renovations, LLC, Justin Hancock,
Trey Archer, and Archer Services, LLC (collectively “the Contractor
Defendants”), Gulf South Homes, LLC (“Gulf South”), and Sunshine
Homes, Inc. (“Sunshine Homes”). Brewer alleged that the Integrity
Defendants conspired “in order to and/or attempt to steal from Brewer,” and
thereby violated the Louisiana Racketeering Act, La. R.S. 15:1351, et seq.
Specifically, Brewer provided:
9.
Thereafter, NATHAN RAZER, JARED BASSET, JUSTIN S.
FREELAND, and/or SIERRA LYNN MCFARLAND
conspired with INTEGRITY HOMES, LLC, GARY DOBBS,
BOBBY WHITE, BRADLEY WITT, BILLY GENE
BARFIELD, and/or TIMOTHY DUPLANTIS in order to
and/or attempt to steal from Brewer.
10.
The actions and/or attempted actions of NATHAN RAZER,
JARED BASSET, JUSTIN S. FREELAND, INTEGRITY
HOMES, LLC, GARY DOBBS, BOBBY WHITE, BRADLEY
WITT, BILLY GENE BARFIELD TIMOTHY DUPLANTIS,
and/or SUNSHINE HOMES, INC., violated the Louisiana
Racketeering Act, Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1351, et seq.
…
12.
Additionally, while acting in their course and scope and
purportedly on behalf of Brewer, NATHAN RAZER, JARED
BASSET, JUSTIN S. FREELAND, and/or SIERRA LYNN
MCFARLAND conspired with IAM RUMMINGS,
RUMMINGS RENOVATIONS, LLC, JUSTIN HANCOCK,
TREY ARCHER and ARCHER SERVICES, LLC, to defraud
Brewer.
The petition further alleged that while under contract, Razer, Basset,
Freeland, and McFarland conspired with Rummings, Rummings
Renovations, Hancock, Archer, and Archer Services to defraud Brewer.
Brewer further alleged that Rummings, Rummings Renovations, Hancock,
Archer, and Archer Services, submitted invoices to Brewer for work
allegedly performed, but the work was not performed or completed. On
September 16, 2025, the Integrity Defendants filed a “Peremptory Exception
of No Cause of Action” in response. The Integrity Defendants argued that
Brewer failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted
regarding its claims of civil conspiracy and racketeering because Brewer’s
claims were conclusory and lacked material facts.
In its opposition, Brewer argued it alleged sufficient facts to maintain
a cause of action for both claims. In support, Brewer cited Reynolds v.
Bordelon, 14-2362 (La. 6/20/15), 172 So. 3d 589, in which the Louisiana
Supreme Court provided in pertinent part:
The exception is triable on the face of the pleadings, and, for
purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception, the
well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true. The
issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the
petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought.
Louisiana retains a system of fact pleading, and mere
conclusions of the plaintiff unsupported by facts will not set
2
forth a cause or right of action. The burden of demonstrating
that a petition fails to state a cause of action is upon the mover.
Brewer asserted that not only did it provide well-pleaded facts sufficient to
establish a valid cause of action; therefore, the court should look at the facts
of the petition and assume they are true, viewing them in a light most
favorable to it, and resolve the matter in its favor.
A hearing on the matter was held on November 25, 2026. After
arguments, the district court found that Brewer stated a cause of action and
denied the exception. Specifically, the district court provided:
Well, the – the general issue of whether or not a petition states a
cause of action or has, uh, an individual has a right of action is
kind of the beginning phases of a – a pleading that starts a
lawsuit or a cause in general, kind of like a probable cause
hearing in a criminal case its – it’s a little lower threshold but –
and the term conspired while I agree if you have to prove that a
conspiracy took place you have to prove certain facts, but when
you use the term conspire it has a specific definition and that
definition contains within it certain elements that have to be
there. And – and so in the petition itself you’re looking at just
the four corners to see if there’s a cause of action that leads to
basically the – the discovery and – and other steps taken in the
– the prosecution of a civil case or the – the um, the defense of
a civil case and – and it is a minimal threshold and so based
upon the four corners of the petition I do believe that there is a
cause of action that has stated…but at this point to – to get the
ball rolling they meet the minimum requirements to state a
cause of action. Therefore, I’m going to deny the exception.
On March 17, 2026, Gulf South filed a peremptory exception of no cause of
action. Gulf South similarly argued that Brewer failed to allege sufficient
facts to establish a claim of civil conspiracy for fraud, and racketeering, and
instead, Brewer provided only conclusory statements. Gulf South further
noted that in addition to the lack of substance, it was only referenced once
throughout the entirety of Brewer’s petition, and there is no reference to its
conduct whatsoever.
3
Brewer opposed the motion, again relying on Reynolds, supra.
Thereafter, Brewer filed an amended and supplemental petition, alleging in
part that:
8. As such, GULF SOUTH HOMES, INC.[,] exercised custody,
control, and/or authority over the operations conducted under
the name INTEGRITY HOMES, LLC, including the acts and
omissions of its members and agents.
10. GULF SOUTH HOMES, INC.[,] knew or should have
known that its license, authority, and insurance were being used
in furtherance of the wrongful and unlawful conduct described
in the original Petition, including but not limited to acts
constituting fraud, conversion, and violations of the Louisiana
Racketeering Act.
11. Despite such knowledge, GULF SOUTH HOMES, INC.
failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such conduct and
instead permitted, enabled, and/or facilitated the same.
12. The actions and inactions of GULF SOUTH HOMES, NC.
constitute fault under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315,
including but not limited to negligence, negligent supervision,
and negligent entrustment of its license and authority.
13. Additionally, GULF SOUTH HOMES, INC. is vicariously
liable for the acts of INTEGRITY HOMES, LLC and its
members and agents, who were acting within the course and
scope of authority granted by GULF SOUTH HOMES, NC.
14. Furthermore, GULF SOUTH HOMES, INC. is liable as a
co-conspirator in the unlawful scheme described in the original
Petition, and its conduct constitutes participation in and/or
facilitation of violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act, La.
R.S. 15:1351, et seq.
The district court’s ruling on Gulf South’s exception was not included in the
record before this Court. However, in its brief, Brewer provided that the
exception was granted and the district court granted leave to amend and
supplement its petition. The Integrity Defendants applied for supervisory
review.
4
DISCUSSSION
Here, the Integrity Defendants present only one assignment of error
for this Court’s review: whether the district court erred in overruling their
peremptory exception of no cause of action regarding alleged violations of
the Louisiana Racketeering Act and civil conspiracy to commit fraud.
A peremptory exception of no cause of action is set forth in La. C.C.P.
art. 927(A)(5). The function of an exception of an exception of no cause of
action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether
the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition. Sharp v.
Melton, 53,508 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/20/20), 296 So. 3d 1135; Pesnell v.
Sessions, 51,871 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/28/18), 246 So. 3d 686. The purpose of
the exception of no cause of action is not to determine whether the plaintiff
will prevail at trial but to ascertain if a cause of action exists. Sharp v.
Melton, supra.
A “cause of action,” when used in the context of the peremptory
exception of no cause of action, refers to the operative facts that give rise to
the plaintiff’s right to judicially assert the action against the defendant. Id.
The exception is triable on the face of the petition, and for the purpose of
determining the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the
petition must be accepted as true. Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987 (La. 11/28/01),
801 So. 2d 346; Sharp v. Melton, supra. No evidence may be introduced at
any time to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state
a cause of action. La. C.C.P. art. 931.
The burden of demonstrating that the petition states no cause of action
is upon the mover. Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light, 06-1181 (La.
3/9/07), 951 So. 2d 1058; Sharp v. Melton, supra. All reasonable inferences
5
are made in favor of the nonmoving party in determining whether the law
affords any remedy to the plaintiff. Villareal v. 6494 Homes, LLC, 48,302
(La. App. 2 Cir. 8/7/13), 121 So. 3d 1246. An exception of no cause of
action should be granted only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts in support of any claim which would entitle him to
relief. If the petition states a cause of action on any ground or portion of the
demand, the exception should generally be overruled. Every reasonable
interpretation must be accorded the language used in the petition in favor of
maintaining its sufficiency and affording the plaintiff the opportunity of
presenting evidence at trial. Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc.,
05-0612 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So. 2d 1211; Sharp v. Melton, supra.
An appellate court’s review of a trial court’s ruling sustaining an
exception of no cause of action is de novo because the exception raises a
question of law, and the trial court’s decision is based only on the
sufficiency of the petition. Fink v. Bryant, supra. The essential question is
whether, in the light most favorable to plaintiff and with every doubt
resolved in plaintiff’s favor, the petition states any valid cause of action for
relief. Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light, supra.
Racketeering
Regarding Brewer’s allegations regarding racketeering, the Integrity
Defendants maintain that Brewer failed to state a claim against them for a
violation of the Louisiana Racketeering Act.
The Integrity Defendants contend that for Brewer to establish a claim
of racketeering, it was required to show a “pattern of racketeering” through
well-pleaded facts. However, the Integrity Defendants maintain that Brewer
only presented the following claims:
6
9.
Thereafter, NATHAN RAZER, JARED BASSET, JUSTIN S.
FREELAND, and/or SIERRA LYNN MCFARLAND
conspired with INTEGRITY HOMES, LLC, GARY DOBBS,
BOBBY WHITE, BRADLEY WITT, BILLY GENE
BAREFIELD, and/or TIMOTHY DUPLANTIS in order to
and/or attempt to steal from Brewer.
10.
The actions and/or attempted actions of NATHAN RAZER,
JARED BASSET, JUSTIN S. FREELAND, SIERRA LYNN
MCFARLAND, INTEGRITY HOMES, LLC, GARY DOBBS,
BOBBY WHITE, BRADLEY WITT, BILLY GENE
BAREFIELD, TIMOTHY DUPLANTIS, and/or SUNSHINE
HOMES, INC. violated the Louisiana Racketeering Act,
Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1351[,] et seq.
Integrity Defendants urge that such allegations are nothing more than selfserving conclusory allegations that lack specific, well-pleaded facts, which
would demonstrate that the Integrity Defendants were guilty of engaging in
any form of racketeering. Specifically, the Integrity Defendants argue that
Brewer’s claims failed to present any facts to assert “when, where, or
how the Integrity Defendant conspired or engaged in a concerted action, or
what the concerted action was alleged to be” or to identify what the Integrity
Defendants “attempt[ed] to steal.”
Moreover, the Integrity Defendants argue that Brewer presented no
factual allegations that either the Integrity Defendants, as a whole or as
individuals, engaged in a single incident of racketeering or received any
proceeds from such activities. Notably, the Integrity Defendants assert that
no facts were alleged to demonstrate “when, where, or how” any of the
individually named defendants “conspired with any of the Contractor
Defendants to steal from Brewer,” or made any allegation that any of the
7
named defendants “hired any of the Contractor Defendants or that any
business relationship existed between” them.
The Integrity Defendants argue that there are simply no facts set forth
in Brewer’s petition which demonstrate the Integrity Defendants “knew of
the alleged fraud by the Contractor Defendants, that the Integrity Defendants
assisted or encouraged the Contractor Defendants in committing any
fraudulent acts, that the Integrity Defendants received any proceeds or
derived any benefit from the Contractor Defendants’ alleged acts, or any
other acts or omissions that would extend a remedy to Plaintiff against the
Integrity Defendants.” As such, the Integrity Defendants assert Brewer’s
use of the term “conspiracy” serves as nothing more than a conclusion that
the trial court should have disregarded.
The provisions of the Louisiana Racketeering Act are set forth in La.
R.S. 15:1351, et seq. La. R.S. 15:1353 (A) provides that “[i]t is unlawful for
any person who has knowingly received any proceeds derived, directly or
indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity to use or invest, whether
directly or indirectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived
from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to, or any
right, interest, or equity in immovable property or in the establishment or
operation of any enterprise.” La. R.S. 15:1352 defines, in part, that
“racketeering activity” is the:
“[C]ommitting, attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or
soliciting, coercing, or intimidating another person to commit
any crime that is punishable under the following provisions of
Title 14 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, the Uniform
Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, or the Louisiana
Securities Law:
(37) R.S. 14:67 (Theft)
8
Theft is prohibited by La. R.S. 14:67, which provides, in pertinent part that
“[t]heft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs
to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or
taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations. An
intent to deprive the other permanently of whatever may be the subject of the
misappropriation or taking is essential.”
Regarding racketeering, La. R.S. 15:1352(C) provides that a pattern of
racketeering means “engaging in at least two incidents of racketeering
activity that have the same or similar intents, results, principals, victims, or
methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing
characteristics and are not isolated incidents, provided at least one of such
incidents occurs after August 21, 1992 and that the last of such incidents
occurs within five years after a prior incident of racketeering activity.”
Although these statutes are part of the Louisiana Code of Criminal
Procedure, they provide for a civil cause of action. La. R.S. 15:1356
provides, in part:
E. Any person who is injured by reason of any violation of the
provisions of R.S. 15:1353 shall have a cause of action against
any person engaged in racketeering activity who violates a
provision of R.S. 15:1353. Such injured person shall be entitled
to recover three times the actual damages sustained or ten
thousand dollars, whichever is greater. Such person shall also
recover attorney fees in the trial and appellate courts and costs
of investigation and litigation reasonably incurred.
Based on this Court’s de novo review of the record, we find that
Brewer failed to state a cause of action against the Integrity Defendants for
racketeering.
In the present case, Brewer’s petition for damages is brief, and only
sparsely alleges that the Integrity Defendants, collectively and individually,
9
conspired to steal from Brewer, and violated the Louisiana Racketeering Act
as alleged in the following paragraphs:
9.
Thereafter, NATHAN RAZER, JARED BASSET, JUSTIN S.
FREELAND, and/or SIERRA LYNN MCFARLAND
conspired with INTEGRITY HOMES, LLC, GARY DOBBS,
BOBBY WHITE, BRADLEY WITT, BILLY GENE
BAREFIELD, and/or TIMOTHYDUPLANTIS in order to
and/or attempt to steal from Brewer.
10.
The actions and/or attempted actions of NATHAN RAZER,
JARED BASSET, JUSTIN S. FREELAND, SIERRA LYNN
MCFARLAND, INTEGRITY HOMES, LLC, GARY DOBBS,
BOBBY WHITE, BRADLEY WITT, BILLY GENE
BAREFIELD, TIMOTHY DUPLANTIS, and/or SUNSHINE
HOMES, INC. violated the Louisiana Racketeering Act,
Louisiana Revised Statute 15:1351[,] et seq.
As the Integrity Defendants argue, Brewer only made conclusory statements
that the Integrity Defendants conspired to attempt to steal or did steal from
Brewer, and in turn, violated the Louisiana Racketeering Act. Brewer’s
pleading is devoid of well-pleaded facts which would establish that the
Integrity Defendants operated with the common purpose of harming Brewer.
Further, Brewer’s allegations lack any substantial information as to when or
what the Integrity Defendants stole or attempted to steal from Brewer or the
monetary value of what was allegedly stolen, or even how the Integrity
Defendants allegedly stole or attempted to steal from Brewer.
A review of Brewer’s petition reflects that it is devoid of well-pleaded
facts which would sufficiently establish that a pattern of racketeering
occurred.
10
Conspiracy to defraud
Likewise, with respect to Brewer’s allegations of civil conspiracy, the
Integrity Defendants argue that Brewer failed to provide sufficient facts to
demonstrate the elements of fraud.
Specifically, the Integrity Defendants assert that Brewer failed to
establish facts that “Nathan Razer, Justin Freeland, or Sierra McFarland
entered into an ‘agreement’ or had a meeting of the minds with the
Contractor Defendants, or that they in any way participated in, assisted, or
encouraged the alleged fraud committed by Contractor Defendants.” They
maintain that Brewer only provided self-serving conclusory allegations that
only claim the Contractor Defendants submitted invoices for work that was
alleged not performed or completed without pleading any facts to show “the
type of work performed or alleged to have been performed by the Contractor
Defendants, when or where such work was performed or alleged to have
been performed, the date or amount of any invoices submitted or to whom
they were submitted, or any other facts demonstrating the essential elements
of a fraud claim against any of the Integrity Defendants.”
An independent cause of action for civil conspiracy does not exist in
Louisiana; rather, the actionable element is the intentional tort that the
conspirators agreed to commit or committed, in whole or part, causing the
plaintiff’s injury. Coleman v. Querbes Co. No. 1, 51,159 (La. App. 2 Cir.
2/15/17), 218 So. 3d 665; Haygood v. Dies, 48,485 (La. App. 2 Cir.
11/20/13), 127 So. 3d 1008, writ denied, 13-2955 (La. 2/28/14), 134 So. 3d
1177; Hardy v. Easterling, 47,950 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/13), 113 So. 3d
1178.
11
The actionable element in a claim under La. C.C. art. 2324 is not the
conspiracy itself, but rather the tort which the conspirators agreed to
perpetrate and which they actually commit in whole or in part. Coleman v.
Querbes Co. No. 1, supra. To establish a conspiracy, a plaintiff is required
to provide evidence of the requisite agreement between the parties, i.e., the
plaintiff must establish a meeting of the minds or collusion between the
parties for the purpose of committing wrongdoing. Id.
Further, to establish conspiracy, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) an
agreement existed to commit an illegal or tortious act; (2) the act was
actually committed; (3) the act caused the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) there
was an agreement as to the intended outcome or result. Jeff Mercer, LLC v.
State through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 51,371 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/7/17), 222
So. 3d 1017, writ denied, 17-1442 (La. 12/5/17), 231 So. 3d 625, cert.
denied, 504 U.S. 933, 138 S. Ct. 1566, 200 L. Ed. 2d 746 (2018). Moreover,
a plaintiff is required to provide evidence of the requisite agreement between
the parties, i.e., the plaintiff must establish a meeting of the minds or
collusion between the parties for the purposes of committing wrongdoing.
Id.
Fraud is a misrepresentation or a suppression of the truth made with
the intention either to obtain an unjust advantage for one party or to cause a
loss or inconvenience to the other. La. C.C. art. 1953. Fraud may also result
from silence or inaction. Id. While fraud may result from a party’s silence
or inaction, mere silence or inaction without fraudulent intent does not
constitute fraud. Intent to defraud and loss or damage are two essential
elements to constitute legal fraud. Benton v. Clay, 48,245 (La. App. 2 Cir.
8/7/13), 123 So. 3d 212.
12
To succeed in a claim for intentional/fraudulent misrepresentations,
the petition must contain allegations of: (1) a misrepresentation of material
fact, (2) made with the intent to deceive, (3) causing justifiable reliance with
resulting injury. Id. In pleading fraud or mistake, the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake shall be alleged with particularity. Malice,
intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be alleged
generally. La. C.C.P. art. 856.
In the present case, Brewer presented the following allegations in their
petition regarding civil conspiracy for fraud:
12.
Additionally, while acting in their course and scope and
purportedly on behalf of Brewer, NATHAN RAZER, JARED
BASSET. JUSTIN S. FREELAND. and/or SIERRA LYNN
MCFARLAND conspired with IAN RUMMINGS,
RUMMINGS RENOVATIONS, LLC, JUSTIN HANCOCK,
TREY ARCHER, and ARCHER SERVICES, LLC, to defraud
Brewer.
13.
IAN RUMMINGS, RUMMINGS RENOVATIONS, LLC,
JUSTIN HANCOCK, TREYARCHER, and ARCHER
SERVICES, LLC., submitted invoices to Brewer for work
allegedly performed for Brewer.
14.
IAN RUMMINGS, RUMMINGS RENOVATIONS, LLC,
JUSTIN HANCOCK, TREYARCHER, and ARCHER
SERVICES, LLC., either did not perform said work or did not
complete work for which they were paid by Brewer.
We likewise find that Brewer’s allegations in this regard are conclusory and
are devoid of material fact which would support their allegation that the
Integrity defendants conspired to defraud Brewer. Here, there are no
material facts pled to assert the Integrity Defendants either misrepresented or
suppressed the truth with the intent to obtain an unjust advantage or cause a
loss or inconvenience to Brewer. Moreover, there are no allegations that
13
Brewer relied on any of the work performed by any of the Integrity
Defendants, let alone any specificity of what work was contracted to be
performed or what was allegedly not completed.
Importantly, Brewer has not alleged that any of the Integrity
Defendants conspired with any other named defendant to engage in
fraudulent conduct with the intent to cause injury. The mere use of the term
“conspired,” without more, is insufficient to show that the Integrity
Defendants actually conspired to defraud Brewer. Therefore, we cannot say
that Brewer sufficiently pled enough material facts in their petition for fraud
or conspiracy to commit fraud against it by the Integrity Defendants.
However, while we disagree with the trial court’s denial of the
Integrity Defendant’s exception of no cause of action, we find that Brewer,
under La. C.C.P. art. 934,1 should be afforded an opportunity to amend its
petition to remove the grounds for the exception, if it can, by alleging
specific facts that would otherwise supports its claims against the Integrity
Defendants.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed herein, we respectfully reverse the trial
court judgment finding that Brewer stated a cause of action against the
Integrity Defendants for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and
civil conspiracy to defraud, and remand to the trial court to allow Brewer to
1
La. C.C.P. art. 934 states that when the grounds of the objection pleaded by the peremptory exception may be removed by amendment of the petition, the judgment sustaining the exception shall order such amendment within the delay allowed by the court. However, if the grounds of the objection raised through the exception cannot be removed, the action, claim, demand, issue, or theory shall be dismissed.
14
amend its original petition. Costs are assessed equally to Brewer and the
Integrity Defendants.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
15