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
November 24, 2020
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
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: L
ouisiana Community D evelopment Capital Fund, Inc. ("CAPFUND") -
Applicant Other; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, 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;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 24, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Johnson, C.J., would deny.
Weimer, J., would deny.
Hughes, J., would deny.
SJC
JTG
JBM
WJC
11/24/2020 “See News Release 046 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

11/24/2020
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2020-C-01002
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
On Writ of Certiorari to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal, Parish of East Baton
Rouge
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. Every reasonable interpretation must be accorded to the
language of a petition in favor of maintaining a cause of action, and the burden of
demonstrating that a petition states no cause of action is placed on the exceptor. See
Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin , 02-0665, p. 7 (La. 1/28/03), 837 So.2d
1207, 1213, and City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist.,
93-0690, p. 28 (La. 7/5/94), 640 So.2d 237, 253.
Here, plaintiff alleges a law firm formerly representing the plaintiff acted in
“bad faith and/or with malice” in filing evidence of a claimed lien for attorney fees
and costs into the record of an arbitral proceeding, which involved the plaintiff’s
efforts to collect an alleged debt. Plaintiff further alleges the law firm was similarly
motivated when refusing to disavow a lien, thereby damaging the plaintiff by
blocking a settlement and subjecting plaintiff to further losses imposed by a
successful counterclaim by the alleged debtor in the arbitration.

2

A fair interpretation of these allegations is that the plaintiff invokes a cause
of action under the civil law abuse of right doctrine. See Truschinger v. Pak, 513
So.2d 1151, 1154 (La. 1987) (noting recognition of abuse of right as a civilian cause
of action available in “limited circumstances”); see also Massachusetts Mut. Life
Ins. Co. v. Nails, 549 So.2d 826, 829 (La.1989) (noting that as to contractual right,
“if a party does not have a legitimate and serious interest in the exercise of the right,
and to do so would bring unnecessary harm to another, the doctrine of abuse of rights
will bar the exercise of the right”).
Without deciding whether the abuse of right doctrine is applicab le in the
specific context of efforts by a law firm to recover its costs and attorney fees, we
find at this preliminary stage of this litigation that the defendant law firm has failed
to carry its burden to show it does not. See City of New Orleans , 93-0690 at 28,
640 So.2d at 253.
The judgment sustaining the peremptory exception of no cause of action and
dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice is vacated. This matter is remanded
to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.