The purpose of the peremptory 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 petition. Damond v. Marullo, 2019-0675 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/22/20), 307 So.3d 234, 241, writ denied sub nom.Damond v. Marullo, 2020-01243 (La. 3/23/21), 312 So.3d 1104. No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the exception of no cause of action.
Considering the foregoing analysis, this Court will recommend dismissal of all claims by Thomas against Judge Fontenot in the instant suit based on the application of absolute judicial immunity. In so recommending, the undersigned notes that Thomas' allegations of malice or retaliation, taken as true, do not save his claims from Judge Fontenot's immunity defense. Damond v. Marullo, 307 So.3d 234, 242 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2020) (citing Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11).
Jeansonne v. Bonano, 2017-0828 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/23/18), 241 So.3d 1027, 1032. Damond V. Marullo, 2019-0675 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/22/20), 307 So.3d 234, 240, writ denied sub nom. Damond v. Marullo, 2020-01243 (La. 3/23/21), 312 So.3d 1104. Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella & Co., Inc., 278 F.3d 472, 478 (5th Cir. 2002).
A caveat to this rule is that, even when evidence is introduced, when there is no dispute regarding material facts, the reviewing court is to apply a de novo standard of review, and give no deference to the trial court's legal conclusions. SeeDamond v. Marullo , 19-0675, p. 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/22/20), 307 So. 3d 234, 240, writ denied sub nom.Damond v. Marullo , 20-01243 (La. 3/23/21), 312 So. 3d 1104 ; Wells Fargo Fin. Louisiana, Inc. v. Galloway , 17-0413, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/15/17), 231 So. 3d 793, 800.
The exception is triable on the face of the pleadings, and, for purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception, the well-pled facts in the petition must be accepted as true. Damond v. Marullo, 2019-0675 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/22/20), 307 So.3d 234, 241, writ denied, 2020-01243 (La. 3/23/21), 312 So.3d 1104. In this case, the issue at the hearing of the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action is whether, on the face of the petition, Bradley is legally entitled to the relief sought.
Thus, in this matter, where no evidence was introduced at the hearing on the exception, we accept as true the facts alleged in the petitions and apply the de novo standard to our review of the trial court's legal conclusions.See Damond v. Marullo, 2019-0675 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/22/20), 307 So. 3d 234, 240, writ denied sub nom, Damond v. Marullo, 2020-01243 (La. 3/23/21), 312 So. 3d 1104, and cert. denied sub nom, Damond v. Marullo, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 567, 211 L.Ed. 2d 354 (2021).
However, as to the Caldwell Assessor in the Caldwell suit, the district court retained jurisdiction to render the December judgment, because that matter was not reviewable under the appeal of the October judgment. SeeDamond v. Marullo, 19-0675 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/22/20), 307 So.3d 234, 239, writ denied, 20-01243 (La. 3/23/21), 312 So.3d 1104 (noting the district court retained jurisdiction over claims against one defendant after an appeal was granted from a judgment ruling on claims against other defendants). Similarly, as to the LTC in the Franklin and Jackson suits, and as to the Caldwell, Franklin, and Jackson Assessors in those suits, the district court retained jurisdiction to render the December judgment, because these matters were not reviewable under the appeal of the October judgment.
The exception is triable on the face of the pleadings, and, for purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception, the well-pled facts in the petition must be accepted as true. Damond v. Marullo, 2019-0675 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/22/20), 307 So.3d 234, 241, writ denied, 2020-01243 (La. 3/23/21), 312 So.3d 1104. The issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought.