Ronald Bias v. Carl J. Foster and John B. Wells

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

RONALD BIAS NO. 2021 CW 0172
PAGE 1 OF 1
VERSUS

CARL J. FOSTER AND JOHN B. MAY 12, 2021
WELLS

In Re: John B. Wells, for writs, 19th
applying supervisory
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
No. 687496.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, CHUTZ, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The trial 21,
court' s January
2021 judgment denying the peremptory exception of no cause of

action filed by the relator, John B. Wells, is reversed. The
original and amending petitions filed by the plaintiff, Ronald
Bias, fail to state a cause of action against Wells, the

attorney of Bias' adversary, Carl J. Foster. In particular,

Bias fails to state a cause of action against Wells for breach
of the " Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal" because Wells
was not a party to that agreement. Bias fails to state a cause

of action against Wells for negligence because Wells, the
attorney for Bias' adversary, owed no legal duty to Bias. See
Penalber v. Blount, 550 So. 2d 577, 581 ( La. 1989); Montalvo v.
Sondes, 637 So. 2d 127, 130 ( La. 1994). The remainder of the
allegations contained in Bias' petitions refers to Wells'
representation of Foster in a defamation suit and an abuse of

process suit filed by Wells on Foster' s behalf. In bringing a

cause of action based
against an
attorney on intentional tort,
it is essential for the petition to allege facts showing
specific malice or an intent to harm on the part of the
attorney. Montalvo, 637 So. 2d at 130 ( La. 1994). Legal or

factual conclusions, absent facts which support such

conclusions, are insufficient. See Id. at 131. We find that
Bias' original and
amending petitions fail to allege specific
actions Wells' intent
evidencing malice or to inflict direct
harm. Additionally, Bias fails to state a cause of action

against Wells based on the filing of the abuse of process suit

because there has been no " bona fide termination" of the abuse
of process suit in Bias' favor. See Id.
Accordingly, the
exception of no cause of action
filed by Wells is granted, and
this matter is remanded to the district court with instructions
to afford Bias an opportunity to amend his petition, if he can,
to state a cause of action against Wells. See La. Code Civ. P.
art. 934.

PMC

WRC

WIL

EW

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

2021 CW 0172

PAGE 2 OF 2

Guidry, J., dissents and would deny the writ.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CZ RK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT