Dodson & Hooks, Aplc v. The Louisiana Community Development Capital Fund, Inc. "capfund" C/w The Louisiana Community Development Capital Fund, Inc. (capfund) Vs. Dodson & Hooks, Aplc

Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 17, 2021
Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
DODSON & HOOKS, APLC
VS.
THE LOUISIANA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FUND, INC.
"CAPFUND"
C/W
THE LOUISIANA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FUND, INC.
(CAPFUND)
VS.
DODSON & HOOKS, APLC
No.2020-C-01002
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Dodson & Hooks, APLC - Applicant Other; Applying for Rehearing, Parish
of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) C642674 C/W C-652-
673, 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, Number(s) 2018 CA 1784 C/W 2018 CA 1785;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 17, 2021
Application for rehearing granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
Hughes, J., would grant and docket.
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
02/17/2021 "See News Release 007 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

02/17/21
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2020-C-1002
DODSON & HOOKS, APLC
V.
THE LOUISIANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FUND, INC.
''CAPFUND''
c/w
THE LOUISIANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL FUND, INC.
(CAPFUND)
V.
DODSON & HOOKS, APLC
ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM
We grant rehearing for the sole purpose of clarifying our original disposition
in this matter.
In deciding an exception of no cause of action, we are guided by the well-
settled principle that the function of an exception 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. Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La. 1984).
No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the objection that the petition
fails to state a cause of action. La. Code Civ.Proc. art. 931. Therefore, the court
reviews the petition and accepts well pleaded allegations of fact as true, and 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. Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru
South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La. 1993).

In the case at bar, plaintiff’s petition and amended petition essentially alleged
Dodson & Hooks did not earn any fees, was not entitled to file a lien for unearned
fees, and failed to remove the wrongfully filed and recorded lien. Accepting these
facts as true for the purpose of the exception of no cause of action, we concluded
plaintiff stated a cause of action in tort based on allegations Dodson & Hooks caused
damage to plaintiff by wrongfully filing a lien in a case in which it had not earned any
attorney fees.1
In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize we are not expressing any opinion
on the merits. Rather, our holding simply stands for the proposition that based on the
liberal standard for deciding an exception of no cause of action, we find plaintiff has
alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action. If Dodson & Hooks believes
plaintiff is unable to establish these facts, it has other procedural remedies available,
such as filing a properly-supported motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, we grant rehearing and affirm our original decree which vacated
the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s suit and remanded the case to the district court
for further proceedings.

1 Our original disposition made reference to the abuse of rights doctrine. This discussion
was not essential to our holding that plaintiff stated a cause of action in tort. Nothing in our
earlier disposition should be read as expanding the abuse of rights doctrine.
2