TRACER SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AND SILVER EAGLE SECURITY, INC.
LINDA M. LEDET AND JOHN J. LEDET, JR.
Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court In and
for the Parish of Lafourche State of Louisiana Docket No.
Patrick K. Reso Frank J. Divittorio Hammond, Louisiana
Counsel for Plaintiffs/ Appellants Tracer Security Services,
Inc. and Silver Eagle Security, Inc.
Christopher H. Riviere Todd M. Magee Thibodaux, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees John J. Ledet, Jr. and Linda
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
seek review of a judgment that granted defendants'
exception raising the objection of no cause of action and
dismissed plaintiffs' action against the defendants. For
the reasons that follow, we reverse.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Security Services, Inc. and Silver Eagle Security, Inc. filed
a suit on open account pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:2781 seeking to
recover alleged payments for security detail provided at
Cajun Country Casino in Raceland, Louisiana. In their
petition, plaintiffs named Linda M. Ledet and John J. Ledet,
Jr. as defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Ledets
operated the casino under the assumed name of Cajun Country
Casino and that the Ledets held a video bingo license issued
by the State. Plaintiffs further alleged that Cajun Country
Casino was not a corporation, a limited liability company, or
any other type of registered entity, but rather was a trade
name or assumed name of the Ledets. Plaintiffs attached
multiple items to the petition, including a "Service
Agreement" between Tracer and Cajun Country Casino, which
was signed on behalf of the casino by Pamela McGee as
response to the petition, the Ledets filed an exception
raising the objection of no cause of action. The Ledets
asserted that they were not parties to the Service Agreement
such that the plaintiffs cannot assert contractual causes of
action against them.
a hearing, the trial court granted the Ledets' exception,
reasoning that that there was no privity of contract because
the items evidencing the obligations, including the contracts
and gaming license, did not specifically reference the
individuals John and Linda Ledet. The trial court
subsequently signed a judgment on January 12, 2018, granting
the exception and dismissing the plaintiffs' action
against the Ledets.
plaintiffs have appealed, assigning seven errors for review.
In sum, the plaintiffs maintain that the trial court erred in
granting the exception of no cause of action. The plaintiffs
also assert that the trial court erred in allowing the Ledets
to introduce evidence and by failing to allow the plaintiffs
the opportunity to amend their petition.
peremptory exception raising the exception of no cause of
action tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading by
determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts
alleged. Naquin v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc.,
13-1638 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/2/14), 147 So.3d 207, 209, writ
denied, 14-1091 (La. 9/12/14), 148 So.3d 933. No
evidence may be introduced at any time to support or
controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a
cause of action. LSA-C.C.P. art. 931. Rather, the exception
is triable solely on the face of the petition and any
attached documents. Paulsell v. State, Dept. of
Transp. and Dev., 12-0396 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/12), 112
So.3d 856, 864, writ denied, 13-0274 (La. 3/15/13),
109 So.3d 386. For purposes of resolving the issues raised by
the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be
accepted as true. Reynolds v. Bordelon, 14-2362 (La.
6/30/15), 172 So.3d 589, 594-95. Therefore, the court reviews
the petition and accepts well-pleaded allegations of fact as
true, and the issue is whether, on the face of the petition,
the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought.
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South,
Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La. 1993). Every reasonable
interpretation must be accorded the language of the petition
in favor of maintaining its sufficiency and affording the
plaintiff the opportunity of presenting evidence at trial.
CLB61, Inc. v. Home Oil Company,
LLC, 17-0557, 17-0558 (La.App. 1 Cir.
11/1/17), 233 So.3d 656, 660. The exception should be granted
"only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts in support of any claim that would
entitle him to relief." State of Louisiana, by &
through Caldwell v. Astra Zeneca AB, 16-1073 (La.App. 1
Cir. 4/11/18) __So.3d __, 2018 WL 1755535, *2 (en banc),
citing Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau,
Inc., 05-0612 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So.2d 1211, 1217.
the objection of no cause of action raises a question of law
and the trial court's decision is based solely on the
sufficiency of the petition, review of the trial court's
ruling on the exception is de now. ...