Aaron & Gianna, Plc v. Shavonda Chambers, Adp, Inc., and Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 22, 2024
• Docket: 2024-C-0016
• Status: Published

Opinion

AARON & GIANNA, PLC * NO. 2024-C-0016

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL SHAVONDA CHAMBERS, * ADP, INC., AND JP MORGAN FOURTH CIRCUIT CHASE BANK, N.A. * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2023-07879, DIVISION “L” Honorable Kern A. Reese, Judge ****** Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott,)

William D. Aaron, Jr. DeWayne L. Williams Aaron & Gianna, PLC 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3800 New Orleans, LA 70170

COUNSEL FOR RELATOR

Lawrence Sorohan, II Fisher & Phillips, LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3710 New Orleans, LA 70170

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS JANUARY 22, 2024 TGC TFL NEK

Relator, Aaron & Gianna, PLC (hereinafter “A&G”), seeks review of the trial

court’s December 4, 2023 judgment granting an exception of no cause of action

filed by Respondent, ADP, Inc. (hereinafter “ADP”). After consideration of the

writ application before this Court and the applicable law, we grant the writ and

reverse the judgment of the trial court finding the trial court erred in not allowing

A&G the opportunity to amend its petition for damages as required by La. C.C.P.

art. 934.

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

On August 9, 2023, A&G filed a petition for damages against its former

employee Shavonda Chambers, ADP and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.1 A&G

alleged that while employed as its office manager, Ms. Chambers requested

unauthorized non-taxable reimbursements from A&G’s account which were

disbursed by ADP. The petition for damages asserted the following causes of

action: (1) breach of contract; (2) criminal, fraudulent, or willful acts of

1 A&G contracted with ADP for the processing of its employee payroll and the payment of state

and federal taxes.

1 misconduct; (3) detrimental reliance; (4) violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade

Practices Act (hereinafter “LUTPA”); and (5) conversion.

In response to the petition for damages, ADP filed an exception of no cause

of action arguing that the petition for damages failed to sufficiently state a cause of

action for the (1) criminal, fraudulent, or willful acts of misconduct; (2)

detrimental reliance; (3) violation of LUTPA; and (4) conversion claims.2 A&G

opposed the exception. In addition to arguing the merits of the case, A&G

requested leave of court to amend its petition in the event the trial court granted the

exception of no cause of action. On November 17, 2023, the matter was heard by

the trial court. By judgment dated December 4, 2023, the trial court granted the

exception of no cause of action and dismissed the claims asserted in ADP’s

exception of no cause of action, without prejudice. The trial court’s judgment did

not allow A&G an opportunity to amend the petition for damages “until after it has

performed discovery and determined the viability of its claims, and then it must

file a Motion for Leave to Amend seeking this Court’s approval to do so.” This

application for supervisory review followed.

Discussion

A&G’s writ application seeks review of the trial court’s December 4, 2023

judgment granting ADP’s exception of no cause of action as to four of A&G’s five

claims and not affording A&G an opportunity to amend its petition for damages.3

We find the dispositive issue to be whether the trial court erred in not affording

A&G an opportunity to amend its petition for damages after granting the exception 2 ADP concedes in its exception of no cause of action that A&G sufficiently pleads a breach of

contract claim. 3 An exception of no cause of action is reviewed under a de novo standard of review. Ross v.

State Through Univ. of Louisiana Sys., 2022-0652, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/13/23), 358 So.3d 162, 165, writ denied, 2023-00383 (La. 5/16/23), 360 So.3d 836 (citation omitted).

2 of no cause of action. We therefore analyze this issue without considering the

merits of ADP’s exception of no cause of action.

“The purpose of the peremptory 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.” Scheffler v. Adams & Reese, LLP, 2006-1774,

p. 4 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So.2d 641, 646. “When deciding an exception of no cause

of action, a court considers only the petition for damages, amendments to the

petition for damages and any documents attached to the petition for damages.”

Lawrason v. St. Bernard Par. Pub. Sch. Dist., 2022-0319, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir.

11/9/22), 351 So.3d 814, 821, writ denied, 2023-00103 (La. 4/12/23), 359 So.3d

34, reconsideration not considered, 2023-00103 (La. 6/21/23), 362 So.3d 427. La.

C.C.P. art. 934 provides that “[w]hen 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.” If the grounds of the objection “cannot be so removed, or if

the plaintiff fails to comply with the order to amend, the action, claim, demand,

issue, or theory shall be dismissed.” Id. Amendment of the pleadings is mandatory

“when there is a conceivable possibility that a cause of action may yet be stated by

the plaintiff.” Cooper v. Pub. Belt R.R., 2000-0378, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/20/00),

776 So.2d 639, 641.

A&G asserts the trial court erred in not affording it an opportunity to amend

the petition for damages regarding its claims for (1) criminal, fraudulent, or willful

acts of misconduct; (2) detrimental reliance; (3) violation of LUTPA; and (4)

conversion. The trial court’s judgment provides that while leave to amend is being

denied, A&G could seek leave to amend after it has performed discovery. We find

3 this to be in error. The opportunity to amend is mandatory and not contingent upon

what is ultimately found during discovery. See Id. The trial court found that the

petition for damages failed to provide facts sufficient to support the claims that

were ultimately dismissed. “If the allegations of the petition are merely conclusory

and fail to specify the acts or circumstances that establish a cause of action, then

the trial court should permit the plaintiff the opportunity to amend.” McClain v.

City of New Orleans, 2013-1291, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/5/14), 137 So.3d 671, 677.

Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in not allowing A&G an opportunity to

amend its petition for damages. Therefore, the trial court’s December 4, 2023

judgment granting ADP’s exception of no cause of action is reversed and the

matter remanded to the trial court with instructions to allow A&G the opportunity

to amend its petition.

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS