FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2018-01489,
DIVISION "G-11" Honorable Robin M. Giarrusso, Judge
Raul-Alejandro Ramos PRO SE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.
H. Williams Jaimme' A. Collins ADAMS AND REESE LLP
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Sandra Cabrina
Jenkins, Judge Paula A. Brown
L. BELSOME, JUDGE
Plaintiff, Raul-Alejandro Ramos/Somar, L.L.C., seeks review
of the trial court's judgment granting an exception of no
cause of action in favor of the Defendant, Liberty Bank. For
the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's
Plaintiff filed a petition against the Defendant asserting
numerous claims arising from an alleged breach of contract.
In response, the Defendant filed exceptions of no cause of
action and no right of action. After a hearing, the trial
court granted the exception of no cause of action, denied the
exception of no right of action as moot, and dismissed the
case with prejudice. This appeal followed.
court reviews a trial court's decision sustaining an
exception of no cause of action de novo. McKamey
v. New Orleans Public Facility Management,
Inc., 12-0716, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/19/12), 102
So.3d 222, 226. The exception of no cause of action tests the
legal sufficiency of a petition by examining whether, based
upon the facts alleged within the four corners of the
petition, the law affords the plaintiff a remedy. La. C.C.P.
art. 927(A); see also Meckstroth v. Louisiana Dept. of
Transp. and Dev., 07-0236, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir.
6/27/07), 962 So.2d 490, 492 (citing Everything on Wheels
Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234,
1235-36 (La. 1993)). It is triable on the face of the
petition, all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true and all
doubts are resolved in favor of the sufficiency of the
petition. Haskins v. Clary, 346 So.2d 193, 194 (La.
issue presented for review is whether the Plaintiff's
petition states a valid cause of action for breach of
contract. In order to confect a valid contract, four elements
are required: (1) the capacity to contract; (2) mutual
consent; (3) a certain object; and (4) a lawful cause. In
re Succession of Flanigan, 06-1402, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir.
6/13/07), 961 So.2d 541, 544; see also La. C.C.
arts. 1918, 1927, 1966 and 1971. Consent of the parties is
established through offer and acceptance. La. C.C. art. 1927.
Thus, an enforceable contract requires a meeting of the
minds. Read v. Willwoods Cmty., 14-1475, p. 5 (La.
3/17/15), 165 So.3d 883, 887.
review of the petition reveals that the Plaintiff and Liberty
Bank began discussions concerning some of the Plaintiff's
potential business ventures. Following those discussions, the
Plaintiff drafted, signed and mailed a promissory note to the
Defendant. The Defendant received the note in the mail
without any further action. As a result, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant's silence after receiving the
note created a contract.
granting the no cause of action exception, the trial court
found that a contractual relationship between the parties did
not exist. We agree. The allegations of the Plaintiff's
petition do not establish a meeting of the minds, through
offer and acceptance, to create a contract between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant. ...