Opinion
2022 CW 0788
09-26-2022
DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. v. DON PIERSON, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; AND LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Don Pierson, both individually and in his official capacity as Secretary, Louisiana Department of Economic Development; and Louisiana Department of Economic Development, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 713219.
BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The district court's March 7, 2022 ruling denying the exception of no cause of action filed by the defendants, Don Pierson, both individually and in his official capacity as Secretary, Louisiana Department of Economic Development, and Louisiana Department of Economic Development, is reversed. Pursuant to the State's Procurement Code any contract "for the purchase or disposal of supplies, services, major repairs, or any other item" will not be considered valid "until it has first been executed by the head of the using agency, or his designee, which is a party to the contract and the contractor, and has been approved in writing by the state chief procurement officer." La. R.S. 39:1595 (B) (11) (b) (i); La. R.S. 39:1595.1(A). Moreover, La. R.S. 39:1556(11) defines "contract" as all types of state agreements, regardless of what they may be called, which are for the purchase of supplies, services or any other item and includes contracts of an incentive type. As a result, we find that the agreement alleged by plaintiff was required to be in writing. In addition, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that "[a]bsent fraud, or at least affirmative misrepresentations as to the necessity of a writing, it is almost always the case that it will be unreasonable to rely on an oral promise where the law requires such a promise to be in writing to be enforceable." Morris v. Friedman, 94-2808 (La. 11/27/95), 663 So.2d 19, 26, n.14. Further, a misrepresentation claim "pertains to failure to provide correct information about existing facts;" however, this matter involves the alleged failure to fulfill a promise at some point in the future. Ethyl Corp. v. Gulf States Utilities, Inc., 2001-2230 (La.App. 1st Cir. 10/2/02), 836 So.2d 172, 178, writ denied, 2002-2709 (La. 12/19/02), 833 So.2d 340. Accordingly, as to the breach of contract, detrimental reliance, and misrepresentation claims, the plaintiff, which alleged an oral agreement, failed to state a cause of action. Regarding Don Pierson individually, all of the acts and omissions alleged in the petition against Pierson involve actions he took within the course and scope of his capacity as Secretary, and there are no specific allegations stating a cause of action against him individually. Therefore, the exception of no cause of action filed by the defendants is granted, and plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
MRT
WRC
CHH