Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Grubbs v. Haven Custom Furnishings, LLC

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit

May 29, 2019

JASON GRUBBS AND AIMEE GRUBBS
v.
HAVEN CUSTOM FURNISHINGS, LLC, JENNIFER UDDO, TERRI MCCORMACK, JODY PRICE, AND SQUARE, INC. HAVEN CUSTOMS FURNISHINGS, LLC
v.
JASON GRUBBS AND AIMEE GRUBBS

          ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 767-603 C/W 765-654, DIVISION "K" HONORABLE ELLEN SHIRER KOVACH, JUDGE PRESIDING

          COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, JASON AND AIMEE GRUBBS Roderick C. Patrick

          COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, SQUARE, INC. Richard T. Simmons, Jr.

          Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

          MARC E. JOHNSON, JUDGE

         Plaintiffs/Appellants, Jason Grubbs and Aimee Grubbs, appeal the judgment that sustained the exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action of Defendant/Appellee, Square, Inc., and dismissed their breach of contract lawsuit filed against it in the 24th Judicial District Court, Division "K". For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court's judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         According to the pleadings, in the latter part of 2016, Mrs. Grubbs sought a professional design specialist to provide a proposal to design and furnish portions of her home. Mrs. Grubbs and Haven Custom Furnishings, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Haven") agreed that Haven would propose different furniture items and accessories for Mrs. Grubbs' home. In consideration of the agreement between Mrs. Grubbs and Haven, Mr. Grubbs provided a $10, 000 deposit to be held in escrow. Mr. Grubbs authorized the initial $10, 000 payment to be charged to his American Express credit card. Over the course of 2016, Haven charged Mr. Grubbs' American Express card several more times, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars in charges.

         On December 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their "Petition for Defamation, Conversion, Breach of Contract, and Infliction of Emotional Distress," wherein Plaintiffs sued Haven, its owners, Jennifer Uddo and Terri McCormack, and Square, Inc.[1] As Haven's credit card processor, Plaintiffs asserted that Square, Inc. received and processed unauthorized charges from Haven. In response to Plaintiffs' petition, Square, Inc. filed "Peremptory Exceptions of No Right of Action and No Cause of Action, and in the Alternative, Dilatory Exceptions of Vagueness or Ambiguity, and Prematurity." In its exceptions, Square, Inc. argued that Mr. Grubbs is not a third-party beneficiary to its contract with either Haven or American Express; thus, he had neither a right of action nor a cause of action against it.

         A hearing on Square, Inc.'s exceptions was held on September 27, 2017. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge orally found that no facts alleged in the petition supported any cause of action against Square, Inc., and any benefit Plaintiffs may have received from Square, Inc.'s contracts was purely incidental. The trial judge then sustained Square, Inc.'s exception of no cause of action and denied Plaintiffs' request to amend their petition. In a written judgment rendered on October 13, 2017, the trial court sustained Square, Inc.'s exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action, dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims against Square, Inc. with prejudice, and found the remaining exceptions of vagueness, ambiguity, and prematurity to be moot. Plaintiffs filed the instant appeal, contesting the trial court's October 13, 2017 judgment.

         ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

         On appeal, Plaintiffs allege the trial court erred in: 1) sustaining Square Inc.'s exception of no cause of action; 2) sustaining Square Inc.'s exception of no right of action, particularly when it was not sustained at the exceptions hearing; and 3) failing to provide them with an opportunity to amend their petition to cure any alleged defect.

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         Exception of No Cause of Action

         Plaintiffs allege the trial court was clearly erroneous in sustaining Square Inc.'s peremptory exception of no cause of action. They argue that the trial court was required to accept all of their allegations as true, and their petition set forth more than sufficient facts to show that Square, Inc. was liable to them and provided, at least, one cause of action. Plaintiffs contend that Square, Inc. acted as a paid agent of Haven by processing Haven's charges and presenting them to American Express for payment. Plaintiffs further contend that Square, Inc.-as a credit card processor-had independent liability and assumed certain risks and warranties, which included assurances that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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