Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Babin v. Caddo East Estates I, Ltd.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

October 28, 2014

WILBUR J.

ORDER AND REASONS

SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.

Before the Court is a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Texas state law claim for aiding and abetting Debtor's officers' and directors' breach of fiduciary duty in Fifth Amended Compliant[1] and to dismiss Schuler as a Defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants Caddo East Estates I, Ltd. ("Caddo") and George Schuler ("Schuler").[2] The Court has reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law and now issues this Order and Reasons.

BACKGROUND

Wilbur Babin, Jr. is the Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Phoenix Land Associates, Inc. ("Debtor"), which has as its principals C. Paul Alonzo, Ronald L. Blackburn, and Carolyn Alonzo ("the Principals"). Debtor filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on June 10, 2009, which was converted into a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding on July 31, 2009. The Trustee was appointed on July 31, 2009 and confirmed on August 31, 2009.

On January 19, 2010, the Trustee filed the instant suit, suing Defendants other than Schuler for avoidance of fraudulent transfers on a theory of constructive fraud. On August 13, 2012, after being granted leave, he filed a Second Amended Complaint, which: (1) added Schuler as an additional Defendant, accusing him of aiding and abetting the Principals of the Debtor in breaching their fiduciary duties; (2) added a cause of action against Defendants for recovery of fraudulent transfers based on a theory of actual fraud under 11 U.S.C. ยง 548(a)(1)(A); and (3) added a cause of action against Defendants for a declaratory judgment that the transfer of Debtor's real property is a nullity under Louisiana law.[3]

Schuler moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on various grounds.[4] The Court issued the First Schuler Order denying the motion to dismiss concluding that (1) the Bankruptcy Code does not preempt a claim for aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty, and (2) Louisiana law applies to the Trustee's claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, [5]and Louisiana might permit a civil conspiracy claim. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend "to plead a cause of action for conspiracy under Louisiana law."[6]

Plaintiff then filed Third and Fourth Amended Complaints.[7] In the Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Schuler and Caddo knowingly participated and assisted in the Principals' breaches of the fiduciary duties they owed to the Debtor and that the Debtor was proximately damaged by Schuler and Caddo aiding and abetting the breaches.[8] Plaintiff also alleged that Caddo and Schuler conspired with each other and with the officers and directors of Phoenix to commit fraud.[9] Caddo and Schuler filed a second motion to dismiss the new conspiracy claim in the Fourth Amended Complaint and to dismiss Schuler as a defendant altogether.[10]

Plaintiff then filed a motion to reconsider asking that the Court review its rulings in the First Schuler Order "relative only to the following issues: (1) Whether Texas law, and not Louisiana law, governs the Trustee's aiding and abetting claim pursuant to the standards set forth in La. C.C. Art. 3543, or alternatively Art. 3542; and, if not (2) Whether the Trustee's civil conspiracy claims are prescribed or are otherwise not viable."[11] In the First Schuler Order, the Court held that Louisiana's choice-of-law rules applied and that Louisiana Civil Code article 3542 supplied the analysis to be used when deciding which state's law applied to the Plaintiff's claim for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.[12] The Court found that, under the factors set out in article 3542, Louisiana law applied. In the motion to reconsider, the Plaintiff argued that instead article 3543 should be used, and under that article, Texas law applies to this claim. The Court reconsidered its ruling in the First Schuler Order and held that Texas law governs the Trustee's claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.[13]

Because the Court reconsidered its prior ruling and held that Texas law applies to Plaintiff's claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint asserting a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty only under Texas law. Schuler and Caddo's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice, and they were given leave to file a motion to dismiss in response to Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint was filed on August 15, 2014 and asserts a Texas state law claim for aiding and abetting debtor's officers' and directors' breach of fiduciary duty.[14] Defendants Caddo and Schuler then filed this motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Texas state law claim for aiding and abetting in Fifth Amended Complaint and to dismiss Schuler as a Defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).[15]

STANDARD OF LAW

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the plaintiff has not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.[16] As the Fifth Circuit explained in Gonzalez v. Kay:

"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The Supreme Court recently expounded upon the Twombly standard, explaining that "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. It follows that "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n]' - that the pleader is entitled to relief. " Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).[17]

This Court cannot look beyond the factual allegations in the pleadings to determine whether relief should be granted.[18] In assessing the complaint, a court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and liberally construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.[19] "Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint on its face show[s] a bar to relief.'"[20] "A statute-of-limitations defense may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), but the defense is subject to the traditional rule that the motion cannot be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'"[21]

ANALYSIS

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a valid Texas state law claim for "knowing participation" in a breach of fiduciary duty, and, thus, the claim must be dismissed.[22] The Fifth Circuit has stated:

Under Texas law, "where a third party knowingly participates in the breach of duty of a fiduciary, such third party becomes a joint tortfeasor with the fiduciary and is liable as such." Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp., 138 Tex. 565, 160 S.W.2d 509, 514 (1942). To establish a claim for knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must assert: (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) that the third party knew of the fiduciary relationship; and (3) that the third party was aware that it was participating in the breach of that fiduciary relationship. See Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P. v. Wootten, 59 S.W.3d 717, 721-22 (Tex.App.2001) (citing Kinzbach Tool, 160 S.W.2d at 514).[23]

Texas courts also refer to this claim as aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty of another.[24]

Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to allege Caddo and Schuler knew of the existence of a fiduciary relationship or that they knew they were participating in a breach of that fiduciary relationship.[25] Plaintiff responds that he has set forth sufficient facts in his Fifth Amended Complaint to satisfy the plausibility standard under Twombly and Iqbal. [26] The Court finds that Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint contains sufficient factual allegations that, when accepted as true, "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"[27] Specifically, the Fifth Amended Complaint alleges the existence of a fiduciary relationship in paragraphs 40 and 41.[28] It also sets forth sufficient facts from which one may infer that the remaining two elements are met: that Schuler and Caddo knew of the fiduciary relationship and that they were aware that they were participating in the breach of that fiduciary relationship.[29] For this reason, Plaintiff's claim sufficiently states a claim for relief.

Defendants also assert that the Trustee's claim for aiding and abetting breach of the Debtor's directors' and officers' duties must be dismissed because it is barred by Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period for delictual actions.[30] Even though Texas substantive law applies to Plaintiff's claim, Defendants claim that Louisiana procedural law applies and that Louisiana's laws regarding prescription are considered procedural laws.[31] Plaintiff argues that the Court should instead apply Texas procedural law because the substantive-procedural choice-of-law rules that apply to diversity cases do not apply in bankruptcy cases.[32] Plaintiff further claims that, regardless of whether Texas or Louisiana law applies, Plaintiff's claim has not prescribed because of tolling.[33]

Defendants filed their first motion to dismiss on September 28, 2012.[34] At that time, Plaintiff and Defendants argued that Louisiana's choice-of-law rules should apply.[35] Notably, Plaintiff at that time argued that, although the Court is not bound by Klaxon [36] because this matter is not founded on diversity jurisdiction, the Court should nonetheless follow Klaxon and apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum: Louisiana.[37] Defendants agreed that Louisiana's choice-of-law provisions should apply.[38]

Both parties agreed that the Court should apply Louisiana's choice-of-law rules. Many bankruptcy courts follow the forum state's choice-of-law rules when dealing with state law claims.[39] Finding this approach to be correct, the Court ordered that Louisiana's choice-of-law rules govern the instant matter.[40] Rather than addressing Louisiana's choice-of-law rules in their briefs for this pending motion, both parties argue about whether laws of prescription are procedural or substantive and whether the rules are applied differently in bankruptcy cases. These arguments ignore the fact that the Court already has ruled that Louisiana's conflicts rules apply, and the Court now rules that Louisiana Civil Code article 3549 provides the analysis for deciding which limitations or prescriptive period applies.[41] The Court's use of the forum state's choiceof-law rules in this case is consistent with the approach taken by many courts in dealing with state law claims related to bankruptcy cases not implicating important federal policies.[42]

Louisiana has codified its choice-of-law rules, including its rule for determining which limitations or prescriptive period applies.[43] Article 3549 sets forth the rules for selecting the applicable statute of limitations. In this case, the Court has determined that Texas substantive law applies. Thus, the applicable subsection under the article is subsection (B), which provides:

B. When the substantive law of another state would be applicable to the merits of an action brought in this state, the prescription and peremption law of this state applies, except as specified below:
(1) If the action is barred under the law of this state, the action shall be dismissed unless it would not be barred in the state whose law would be applicable to the merits and maintenance of the action in this state is warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice.[44]

At the motion to dismiss stage, "[a] statute of limitations may support dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where it is evident from the plaintiff's pleadings that the action is barred and the pleadings fail to raise some basis for tolling or the like."[45] In Louisiana, delictual actions are subject to a one-year prescriptive period, which may be tolled under the doctrine of contra non valentem. [46] Under Texas law, the statute of limitations for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty is three years from when the action accrues and is subject to Texas's respective tolling principles.[47] In this case, questions exist as to when Plaintiff's cause of action accrued, when the limitations period began and whether it has expired, and whether the period was tolled. Because it is not apparent from the face of the Fifth Amended Complaint that the action is time barred, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is not appropriate. Instead, a motion for summary judgment is the proper mechanism to raise the issue of whether Plaintiff's claim is barred by Defendant's statute of limitations defense, but only after the facts have been further developed.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendants'Hello This imotion to dismiss is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.