Opinion
NO. 2017 CA 1649
06-04-2018
THE COUNTRY CLUB OF LOUISIANA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. THE BATON ROUGE WATER WORKS COMPANY
KENNETH H. HOOKS, III H. PRICE MOUNGER, III BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT THE COUNTRY CLUB OF LOUISIANA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. BRETT P. FURR JONATHAN A. MOORE BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE THE BATON ROUGE WATER WORKS COMPANY MICHAEL P. SCHILLAGE BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE HENRY D.H. OLINDE, JR. BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE ST. GEORGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. C641552
Honorable R. Michael Caldwell, Judge KENNETH H. HOOKS, III
H. PRICE MOUNGER, III
BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEYS FOR
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
THE COUNTRY CLUB OF LOUISIANA
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC. BRETT P. FURR
JONATHAN A. MOORE
BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEYS FOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
THE BATON ROUGE WATER WORKS
COMPANY MICHAEL P. SCHILLAGE
BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEY FOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF
EAST BATON ROUGE HENRY D.H. OLINDE, JR.
BATON ROUGE, LA ATTORNEY FOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
ST. GEORGE FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT 2 BEFORE: GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, AND CRAIN, JJ. PETTIGREW, J.
In this action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, plaintiff, the Country Club of Louisiana Property Owners Association, Inc. ("CCL"), challenges a trial court judgment sustaining peremptory exceptions filed on behalf of several defendants raising objections of no cause of action. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 14, 2015, CCL filed suit against the Baton Rouge Water Works Company ("BRWW") alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. According to the petition, BRWW had entered into a contract with Country Club Joint Venture, dated May 8, 1985, to install fire hydrants within the Country Club of Louisiana Subdivision ("the subdivision") for a total cost of $45,507.00. The contract, which was attached to CCL's petition for damages along with other documents, further provided that for each fire hydrant installed, BRWW would be paid the annual rate approved by the Louisiana Public Service Commission ("PSC") unless and until the area was incorporated into the city limits of Baton Rouge or into an official and recognized fire district that would assume responsibility for such fire hydrants. CCL alleged that at the time the contract was entered into, the subdivision was located within the St. George Fire Protection District ("St. George"), an official and recognized fire district within the Parish of East Baton Rouge. Thus, CCL asserted, it had been unduly paying fees for fire hydrant services since the inception of the contract.
In response, BRWW filed an exception raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that jurisdiction over matters affecting services and rates charged by public utilities such as BRWW was vested exclusively in the PSC. The trial court granted BRWW's exception, staying the case. Thereafter, CCL filed a breach of contract claim with the PSC seeking relief and damages. After a status conference with the administrative law judge for the PSC, the parties entered into a consent judgment, whereby the trial court stay was lifted and CCL was allowed to file a first amended petition.
CCL filed a first amended claim for damages on October 5, 2016, alleging once again claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In response, BRWW filed an exception raising the objection of no cause of action and prescription. Following a hearing on those exceptions, the trial court afforded CCL 21 days to amend its petition, reasoning:
There is no allegation that St. George Fire District assumed responsibility for such fire hydrants. ... The petition does not allege a cause of action against Baton Rouge Water Works for improperly charging a maintenance fee all these years for those fire hydrants because ... they haven't alleged that the Country Club was incorporated into the city limits of Baton Rouge, and they have not alleged that a Fire District has assumed responsibility for such fire hydrants. I hate to do this, but I've got to give plaintiff the opportunity to amend. I think, when it all comes down to the end of it, Mr. Hooks [(counsel for CCL)], you're going to end up losing this case no matter what. But I'm going to give you 21 days from today in which to amend your petition, if you wish to do so. Otherwise, the exception of no cause of action is sustained, and the claims are dismissed.
On March 21, 2017, CCL filed a second supplemental and amending petition, adding St. George and the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge ("the City") as defendants. CCL specifically alleged that St. George had assumed responsibility for the fire hydrants as follows:
In response thereto, BRWW and St. George filed exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action and prescription, and the City filed exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action and vagueness.
9.
After the Contract was executed and the fire hydrants were installed by BR Water Works, the St. George Fire Protection District immediately assumed responsibility for all of the hydrants as they were located within the St. George Fire Protection District.
10.
Based upon information and belief, since the initial installation of the fire hydrants in the Country Club of Louisiana Subdivision, the St. George Fire Protection District assumed responsibility by, at [a] minimum, conducting annual inspections, performing flush and flow tests of the fire hydrants and maintaining the hydrants in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association.
The exceptions proceeded to a hearing on June 12, 2017, at which time the trial court heard arguments from the parties. The trial court sustained the no cause of action exceptions filed by BRWW, St. George, and the City, offering the following oral reasons for judgment:
This is [an] exception of no cause of action filed by Baton Rouge Water Works. The contract has been before me before over these exceptions. The contract, in my mind at least, is very explicit. It says unless and until the area within the Country Club of Louisiana is incorporated in the city limits of Baton Rouge, or into an official and recognized fire district which shall assume such responsibility for such fire hydrants, CCL agrees it will pay for each such fire hydrant. Mr. Hooks [(counsel for CCL)] has made a valiant effort and has amended the petition, I think several times, trying to state a cause of action, but the facts, I think, are against him. But he's tried to allege that by St. George allegedly performing some services out there that they, in fact, assumed responsibility for such fire hydrants. But as Mr. Furr [(counsel for Baton Rouge Water Works)] points out, he stopped short of actually alleging that in the petition. As I said, he's made a valiant effort, but I just don't think we're going to get there. I'm going to sustain the exception of no cause of action filed by Baton Rouge Water Works.The trial court signed the following judgment in accordance with these findings on June 22, 2017:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that BRWW's Exception of No Cause of Action be and is hereby GRANTED, and accordingly, that CCL's claims against BRWW be and are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.It is from this judgment that CCL has appealed, assigning error to the trial court's judgment granting BRWW's no cause of action exception as to CCL's breach of contract claim and unjust enrichment claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that St. George's Exception of No Cause of Action be and is hereby GRANTED, and accordingly, that CCL's claims against St. George be and are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge's Exception of No Cause of Action be and is hereby GRANTED, and accordingly, that CCL's claims against the City/Parish be and are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER [ORDERED], ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that considering the Court's ruling sustaining BRWW's, St. George's and the City's/Parish's Exceptions of No Cause of Action, the remaining Exceptions be and are hereby rendered MOOT.
The June 22, 2017 judgment as it pertains to St. George and the City has not been appealed and is thus final and not before us on review.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The function of an exception raising the objection 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 pleading. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La. 1993); Copeland v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 2001-1122 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d 68, 70. All facts pled in the petition must be accepted as true. Rebardi v. Crewboats, Inc., 2004-0641 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/11/05), 906 So.2d 455, 457. Furthermore, the facts shown in any documents annexed to the petition must also be accepted as true. B & C Elec., Inc. v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 2002-1578 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/9/03), 849 So.2d 616, 619; see also La. Code Civ. P. art. 853 ("A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes."). The exception is triable on the face of the pleading, and for the purpose of determining the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the pleading must be accepted as true. Richardson v. Richardson, 2002-2415 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/9/03), 859 So.2d 81, 86. Thus, the only issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. Perere v. Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp., 97-2873 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/6/98), 721 So.2d 1075, 1077.
In the present case, as previously noted, CCL's petition contained annexed documents, which this court must consider on our review of the exception raising the objection of no cause of action. The only documentary evidence that may be considered on an exception raising the objection of no cause of action is that which has been annexed to the petition, unless the evidence is admitted without objection to enlarge the petition. Woodland Ridge Ass'n v. Cangelosi, 94-2604 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 671 So.2d 508, 511.
In reviewing a trial court's ruling sustaining an exception raising the objection of no cause of action, the appellate court conducts a de novo review. The exception raises a question of law, and the trial court's decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition. Fink v. Bryant, 2001-0987 (La. 11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 349; B & C Elec., Inc., 849 So.2d at 619. Simply stated, a petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of any claim that would entitle him to relief. Every reasonable interpretation must be accorded the language of the petition in favor of maintaining its sufficiency and affording the plaintiff the opportunity to present evidence at trial. Richardson, 859 So.2d at 86. The question, therefore, is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the petition states any valid cause of action for relief. Copeland, 822 So.2d at 70.
When a petition states a cause of action as to any ground or portion of the demand, an exception raising the objection of no cause of action must be overruled. Thus, if the petition sets forth a cause of action, none of the other causes of action may be dismissed based on an exception pleading the objection of no cause of action. Copeland, 822 So.2d at 70. In reviewing the petition to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, the court must, if possible, interpret it to maintain the cause of action. Any reasonable doubt concerning the sufficiency of the petition must be resolved in favor of finding that a cause of action has been stated. Livingston Parish Sewer Dist. No. 2 v. Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Texas, 99-1728 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/22/00), 767 So.2d 949, 952, writ denied, 2000-2887 (La. 12/8/00), 776 So.2d 1175. However, because Louisiana retains a system of fact pleading, mere conclusory statements in the petition, without supporting facts, are insufficient to set forth a cause of action. Montalvo v. Sondes, 93-2813 (La. 5/23/94), 637 So.2d 127, 131.
As previously indicated, CCL asserted claims against BRWW for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On appeal, CCL argues that its second amended petition alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action against BRWW as it contained facts the trial court found to be lacking in its original petition, i.e., facts that set forth the contract between the parties and the alleged breach of contract, or in the alternative, a claim for unjust enrichment.
The contractual language in question is as follows:
Whereas, COUNTRY CLUB JOINT VENTURE, (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Customer") is desirous of obtaining fire hydrants for fire protection within the area being developed as COUNTRY CLUB OF LOUISIANA SUBDIVISION, and THE BATON ROUGE WATER WORKS COMPANY (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Water Company") is the water utility company serving said area and is willing to provide fire hydrants to COUNTRY CLUB OF LOUISIANA SUBDIVISION, under the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth,
The parties hereto therefore agreed and stipulated for and in consideration of terms hereof as follows:
1. Water Company will install thirty (30) fire hydrants, meeting City of Baton Rouge requirements, in COUNTRY CLUB OF LOUISIANA SUBDIVISION.
2. Customer will pay Water Company promptly after submission of bill the amount of costs of such installation estimated by the parties to be FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVEN AND NO/100 ($45,507.00) DOLLARS.
3. Unless and until the area included within COUNTRY CLUB OF LOUISIANA SUBDIVISION shall be incorporated in the city limits of Baton Rouge, or into an official and recognized fire district which shall assume responsibility for such fire hydrants, Customer agrees that it will pay for each such fire hydrant at the annual rate as approved by the Louisiana Public Service Commission.
In its second supplemental and amending petition, CCL not only alleged St. George had assumed responsibility for the fire hydrants, but also set forth factual allegations regarding the breach of contract by BRWW as follows:
12.
Contrary to the expressed terms of the Contract, BR Water Works improperly billed and collected from the [CCL] a $300.00 yearly fee from 1985 through August of 2015 for each hydrant located within the Country Club of Louisiana Subdivision. This yearly hydrant fee was assessed and billed in violation of the terms of the Contract.
13.
The [CCL] asserts that it has been improperly charged a fee per fire hydrant each year since 1985 and hereby demands repayment of all fees and/or assessments that have been improperly charged and collected by BR Water Works from the [CCL] and its legal predecessors.
14.
The [CCL] asserts a claim for breach of contract against BR Water Works.
15.
Alternatively, should this Court find there to be no breach of contract claim against BR Water Works, the [CCL] asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against BR Water Works as it has paid BR Water Works a $300 yearly fee per fire hydrant while at the same time it has also paid taxes assessed against it to fund the St. George Fire Protection District to cover the service and maintenance of the fire hydrants located within the Country Club of Louisiana Subdivision. It is alleged that the BR Water Works has been paid by the [CCL] for fire hydrants in the Country Club of Louisiana while St. George Fire Protection District also paid BR Water Works for fire hydrants in the Country Club of Louisiana.
Accepting all of the allegations of fact set forth in CCL's petitions, as well as the contract attached to CCL's original petition, as true, and applying the legal principles discussed above to the facts herein, we conclude that CCL has clearly set forth a cause of action for breach of contract against BRWW. We find, therefore, that the trial court erred in sustaining BRWW's exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissing CCL's claims against BRWW.
Because we find CCL stated a valid cause of action for breach of contract against BRWW, we need not discuss the unjust enrichment issue raised by CCL on appeal. --------
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, we reverse that portion of the June 22, 2017 judgment that sustained BRWW's exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissed CCL's claims against BRWW with prejudice. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We assess appeal costs in the amount of $1,377.50 against the Baton Rouge Water Works Company.