Ronald Bias v. Carl J. Foster and John B. Wells

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

RONALD BIAS NO. 2021 CW 0172 PAGE 1 OF 1 VERSUS

CARL J. FOSTER AND JOHN B. MAY 12, 2021 WELLS

In Re: John B. Wells, for writs, 19th applying supervisory Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 687496.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, CHUTZ, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The trial 21, court' s January 2021 judgment denying the peremptory exception of no cause of

action filed by the relator, John B. Wells, is reversed. The original and amending petitions filed by the plaintiff, Ronald Bias, fail to state a cause of action against Wells, the

attorney of Bias' adversary, Carl J. Foster. In particular,

Bias fails to state a cause of action against Wells for breach of the " Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal" because Wells was not a party to that agreement. Bias fails to state a cause

of action against Wells for negligence because Wells, the attorney for Bias' adversary, owed no legal duty to Bias. See Penalber v. Blount, 550 So. 2d 577, 581 ( La. 1989); Montalvo v. Sondes, 637 So. 2d 127, 130 ( La. 1994). The remainder of the allegations contained in Bias' petitions refers to Wells' representation of Foster in a defamation suit and an abuse of

process suit filed by Wells on Foster' s behalf. In bringing a

cause of action based against an attorney on intentional tort, it is essential for the petition to allege facts showing specific malice or an intent to harm on the part of the attorney. Montalvo, 637 So. 2d at 130 ( La. 1994). Legal or

factual conclusions, absent facts which support such

conclusions, are insufficient. See Id. at 131. We find that Bias' original and amending petitions fail to allege specific actions Wells' intent evidencing malice or to inflict direct harm. Additionally, Bias fails to state a cause of action

against Wells based on the filing of the abuse of process suit

because there has been no " bona fide termination" of the abuse of process suit in Bias' favor. See Id. Accordingly, the exception of no cause of action filed by Wells is granted, and this matter is remanded to the district court with instructions to afford Bias an opportunity to amend his petition, if he can, to state a cause of action against Wells. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 934.

PMC

WRC

WIL

EW STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

2021 CW 0172

PAGE 2 OF 2

Guidry, J., dissents and would deny the writ.

DEPUTY CZ RK OF COURT FOR THE COURT