Louisiana Newpack Shrimp, Inc. v. Ocean Feast of China, Ltd.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LOUISIANA NEWPACK SHRIMP, INC. CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 19-12948-WBV-KWR

OCEAN FEAST OF CHINA, LTD, ET AL. SECTION: D (4)

Consolidated with

LONGHAI DESHENG SEAFOOD CIVIL ACTION STUFF CO. LTD

VERSUS NO. 20-782-WBV-KWR

LOUISIANA NEWPACK SECTION: D (4) SHRIMP, INC., ET AL.

OCEANA SEAFOOD PRODUCTS, LLC CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 21-00003-WBV-KWR

LOUISIANA NEWPACK SECTION: D (4) SHRIMP COMPANY, ET AL.

ORDER and REASONS1 Before the Court is Louisiana Newpack’s Rule 12(B)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss Ocean Feast’s Counterclaims.2 In the Motion, Louisiana Newpack Inc. (“Louisiana Newpack”) seeks dismissal of Ocean Feast of China, Ltd.’s (“Ocean Feast’s”) counterclaims for fraud and conversion set forth in Ocean Feast’s Answer

1 All of the citations to the record in this Order refer to documents filed in the master file of this consolidated matter, 19-cv-12948. 2 R. Doc. 156. and Counterclaim Against Louisiana Newpack Shrimp, Inc.,3 as well as Ocean Feast’s request for attorney’s fees therein. Ocean Feast opposes the Motion.4 After careful consideration of the parties’ memoranda and the applicable law,

the Motion is DENIED in part and DENIED as moot, in part. To the extent Louisiana Newpack seeks dismissal of Ocean Feast’s “counterclaim for fraud,” the Motion is DENIED as moot. The Court has already determined, in ruling on Louisiana Newpack’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,5 that the allegations of fraud in Ocean Feast’s Answer and Counterclaim Against Louisiana Newpack, including Paragraph 179, “do not assert a separate cause of action for fraud against Louisiana Newpack.”6

The Motion is also DENIED to the extent that Louisiana Newpack seeks dismissal of Ocean Feast’s counterclaim for conversion. The Court finds that Ocean Feast has alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible counterclaim against Louisiana Newpack for conversion. Finally, the Motion is DENIED to the extent Louisiana Newpack seeks dismissal of Ocean Feast’s request for attorney’s fees, as Ocean Feast has asserted a breach of contract counterclaim against Louisiana Newpack and has

alleged that Louisiana Newpack has acted with fraud and/or bad faith.7

3 R. Doc. 136 at pp.8-13. 4 R. Doc. 179. 5 R. Doc. 212. 6 R. Doc. 290. 7 R. Doc. 136 at ¶¶ 174 & 179. See, Spurgeon v. Leleux, Civ. A. No. 6:11-CV-01807, 2019 WL 138388, at *9-10 (W.D. La. Jan. 8, 2019) (Doughty, J.) (citing Stutts v. Melton, 2013-0557 (La. 10/15/13), 130 So.3d 808) (“The Louisiana Supreme Court has indicated that a plaintiff who has been defrauded in the performance of a contract is entitled to damages, including attorney’s fees.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Louisiana Newpack’s Rule 12(B)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss Ocean Feast’s Counterclaims® is DENIED in part and DENIED in part, as moot. New Orleans, Louisiana, November 9, 2021.

WENDY tien United States District Judge

8 R. Doc. 156.