Advanced Benefit Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Access Health, Inc. & Preferred Care Services, Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2022 CA 1193
2022 CW 1270

ADVANCED BENEFIT CONCEPTS, INC.

C VERSUS

4ZI
UE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA, ACCESS HEALTH,
INC. & PREFERRED CARE SERVICES, INC.

DATE OFjUDGMENT: AUG 0 8 2023

ON REVIEW FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NUMBER 709719, SECTION 27

HONORABLE TRUDY WHITE, JUDGE

Alesia M. Ardoin Counsel for Plaintiff A
- ppellant
R. Gray Sexton Advanced Benefits Concepts, Inc.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Timothy Stephen Babcock
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Tedrick K. Knightshead
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Renee C. Crasto Counsel for Defendants -Appellees
J.E. Cullens, Jr. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Andree M. Cullens Alabama, Access Health, Inc., and
S. Layne Lee Preferred Care Services, Inc.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Carl S. Burkhalter
Matthew J. Bowness
Harold William Bloom
Birmingham, Alabama

BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND RESTER, JJ.

Disposition; MAY 20, 2022 JUDGMENTS REVERSED. WRIT GRANTED AND October 24, 2022
JUDGMENT REVERSED. REMANDED.

CHUM, J.

Plaintiff-appellant, Advanced Benefits Concepts, Inc. ( ABC), appeals the

district court' s judgment, granting a motion for summary judgment asserted by

defendants -appellees, Access Health, Inc., Preferred Care Services, Inc., and Blue

Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ( collectively Access Health),' and dismissing

ABC' s cause of action for breach of a lobbying contract based on a finding that the

contract was a nullity. ABC also challenges, by writ and appeal, the district court' s

interlocutory judgments, overruling declinatory exceptions asserting objections of

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse the interlocutory judgments and the

grant of summary judgment and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 16, 2021, ABC initiated this litigation in district court, seeking to

enforce a fee agreement it had entered into with Access Health, a written version of

which the parties executed on June 1, 2019. According to the allegations of the

petition, in the written fee agreement ABC agreed to " represent Access Health and

help Access Health identify, establish, and enter business relationships and

contracts with various [ employer groups]," and Access Health agreed " to pay

ABC] $ 1. 25 per month per employee covered under Access Health' s contract with

employer groups] that [ ABC] helped establish." The agreement expressly stated

that it " shall be evergreen and remain in full force until the termination of all

employer groups contracts]." Thus, ABC averred that Access Health " agreed to

pay [ ABC] the fees until the termination of the contract between Access Health

and the [ employer group] [ ABC] helped establish."

1 In its petition, ABC alleged, and Access Health, Preferred Care Services, Inc., and Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Alabama admitted in their respective answers, that Preferred Care Services,
Inc. owns approximately 80% of Access Health' s stock and that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Alabama owns 100% of Preferred Care Services, Inc. For ease of reference where the three
defendants acted in unity, we refer to them collectively as Access Health.
2

ABC further alleged that it helped Access Health establish and enter into a

business relationship and contract with the State of Louisiana, Office of Group

Benefits ( OGB), through which Access Health agreed to provide the primary

health care network and services to the OGB plan participants for a monthly

capitation payment as evidenced by a contract between Access Health and OGB

executed on May 9, 2019 ( the OGB contract). Based on an application of the ABC

and Access Health fee agreement, for its role in securing the OGB contract, ABC

calculated Access Health owed a total fee of $ 6, 930,000.00.2 Access Health

initially tendered payments to ABC, but discontinued those payments on December

1, 2020. ABC claimed entitlement to the remainder of the fees owed it under the

fee agreement as well as the expenses it incurred.

Access Health answered ABC' s lawsuit with a general denial and asserted a

reconventional demand,' which sought an award for ABC' s alleged unjust

enrichment of fees Access Health paid that it averred were not owed to ABC under

the written terms of the June 1, 2019 fee agreement because ABC had breached the

contract! On February 4, 2022, Access Health filed a supplemental and amended

pleading, modifying its allegations in support of its reconventional demand.

Recognizing that ABC was the lobbyist who represented Access Health in the

establishment of a business relationship and contract with OGB and claiming that

neither ABC nor its principal, Charles Calvi, were registered as lobbyists with the

State of Louisiana, Access Health asserted that ABC and Calvi engaged in a

2 The term of the OGB contract for which ABC alleged its fee was due began on July 1, 2019
and continued through June 30, 2022, with two one-year options for extensions through June 30,
2024. Based on the monthly fee of $144,375. 00 that ABC averred it was owed, the total fee ABC
claimed is for a period of 48 months.

Preferred Care Services, Inc. and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama filed individual
answers, generally denying ABC' s claims, but did not file individual reconventional demands.

4 Access Health alleged that a dispute arose between it and OGB, which resulted in an
amendment of the May 9, 2019 OGB contract. Because the terns of the OGB contract were
modified, retroactive to July 1, 2019, without ABC' s participation, Access Health averred that
ABC had no entitlement to any fees tendered after July 1, 2019 and breached the fee agreement
by failing to reimburse Access Health for the payments.
3

misrepresentation that rendered the fee agreement between ABC and Access

Health void. Access Health asked that the district court enter a judgment declaring

the fee agreement was void and awarding the total amount of payments Access

Health had tendered to ABC under the fee agreement as an alternative basis for

unjust enrichment damages.

On March 8, 2022, ABC filed a declinatory exception of lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, a peremptory exception of prescription,

directed at Access Health' s reconventional demand for declaratory relief ordering

that the fee agreement was void because neither ABC nor Calvi registered as a

lobbyist with the State of Louisiana. On March 26, 2022, Access Health moved for

summary judgment, seeking dismissal of ABC' s cause of action for breach of

contract on the grounds that the fee agreement was a nullity.

A hearing was held on April 27, 2022, after which the district court

overruled ABC' s exceptions of subject matter jurisdiction and prescription, and

granted summary judgment in favor of Access Health, dismissing ABC' s claim for

breach of contract with prejudice. On May 20, 2022, the district court issued a

written interlocutory judgment, overruling ABC' s exceptions of lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and prescription. It issued a second written judgment, granting

summary judgment in favor of Access Health and dismissing ABC' s cause of

action for breach of contract expressly determining the judgment was final for the

purpose of an immediate appeal.5

ABC filed a motion for new trial, which was ultimately set for a hearing on

August 24, 2022. The district court denied the motion in a judgment signed on

September 12, 2022, and on September 21, 2022, ABC suspensively appealed.

5 The district court issued a third judgment on May 20, 2022, which denied as premature Access
Health' s motion for summary judgment on its reconventional demand seeking an unjust
enrichment award for the amount of all the payments it had paid to ABC pursuant to the fee
agreement that the district court had concluded was null. The parties have not appealed that
judgment.

0

Prior to the hearing on and denial of ABC' s motion for new trial, on June 29,

2022, Access Health amended the allegations of its reconventional demand a

second time to add Calvi as a defendant -in -reconvention. Access Health averred

that ABC acted as Calvi' s alter ego and, therefore, Calvi was personally liable for

the return of all payments Access Health had tendered under the alleged null fee

agreement. Alternatively, Access Health claimed that as ABC' s alter ego, Calvi

was personally liable for ABC' s alleged unjust enrichment of fees Access Health

had paid that it asserted were not owed to ABC under the terms of the fee

agreement. In response to Access Health' s second amended reconventional

demand, ABC and Calvi filed a declinatory exception of lack of subject matter

jurisdiction on July 22, 2022.

During the pendency of suspensive appeal, on October 11, 2022, the district

court held a hearing on ABC' s exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. At

the conclusion of the hearing, the district court overruled the exception from the

bench. The district court issued a written judgment in conformity with its ruling on

October 24, 2022. ABC subsequently filed a notice of intent to seek supervisory

review, and ABC timely applied for a writ." The writ was referred to our panel for

disposition. See Advanced Benefits Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield

of Alabama, 2022- 1270 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 211123) ( unpublished writ action).

Because the memorandum in support of the exception of lack of subject matter

jurisdiction asserted by ABC on July 22, 2022 contains identical arguments to

those ABC asserted in its March 8, 2022 pleading insofar as the lack of subject

matter jurisdiction exception, our analysis and disposition of the appeal and the

6 Since neither the notice of intent nor the district court order setting a return date was filed on
behalf of Calvi, the writ application is only on behalf of ABC. See La. URCA Rule 4.2.
5

writ are the same.' Thus, we tum to the merits of the propriety of the district

court' s judgments on the exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

An objection to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is raised by a

declinatory exception. See La. C. C.P. art. 925( A)(6). The district court' s

determination of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case is subject to

de novo review. Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Inc. v, Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality, 2019- 1551 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/23120),

314 So.3d 841, 848.

The Executive Branch Lobbying Act is set forth in La. R.S. 49:71- 78. 1. In

La. R.S. 49: 71, the legislature expressed the purpose of the Executive Branch

Lobbying Act, declaring:

T]he operation of open and responsible government requires that the
fullest opportunity be afforded to the people to petition their
government for the redress of grievances and to express freely their
opinions on actions of the executive branch. To preserve and maintain
the integrity of executive branch action and state government, the
legislature also declares it is necessary that the identity of persons
who attempt to influence actions of the executive branch and certain
expenditures by those persons be publicly disclosed.

To this end, the Executive Branch Lobbying Act requires that each lobbyist

register with the ethics board (the Board) as soon as possible after employment as a

lobbyist or after the fust action requiring his registration as a lobbyist. See La. R.S.

7 A judgment overruling an exception is generally considered interlocutory and not appealable.
See La. C. C.P. arts. 1841 and 2083; Ascension School Employees Credit Union v. Provost
Salter Harper & Alford, L.L.C., 2006- 0992 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 23107), 960 So.2d 939, 939- 940.
But in a restricted appeal like this one, which is limited to a review of the propriety of the
summary judgment dismissal of ABC' s cause of action based on an allegedly null contract, an
appellant may seely review of interlocutory judgments involving the same or related issues to the
judgment on appeal. See Carrollton Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery ofSouth Louisiana of
Presbyterian Church ( USA), 2011- 0205 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 14111), 77 So. 3d 975, 978- 79, cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 150, 184 L.Ed.2d 32 ( 2012). Because the issue of the district court' s subject
matter jurisdiction to issue a judgment declaring that the fee agreement is null is related to its
summary judgment dismissal of ABC' s breach of contract claim, ABC was entitled to review of
the district court' s May 20, 2022 judgment overruling its exceptions with its appeal.

0

49: 74( A).$Importantly for purposes of this appeal, the Board " shall be responsible

for the enforcement of provisions of [the Act]." See La. R.S. 49: 78( A).

Although La. Const. art. V, sec. 1 provides that "[ t] he judicial power is

vested in a supreme court, courts of appeal, district courts, and other courts

authorized by this Article," pursuant to La. Const. art. V, sec. 16, "([ e] xcept as

otherwise authorized by this constitution ..., a district court shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil and criminal matters." ( Emphasis added.)

Article X, section 21 of the Louisiana Constitution provides such an

exception to the general rule granting district courts original jurisdiction by

authorizing the creation of a board as a tribunal of limited jurisdiction as follows:

The legislature shall enact a code of ethics for all officials
and employees of the state and its political subdivisions. The code
shall be administered by one or more boards created by the
legislature with qualifications, terms of office, duties, and powers
provided by law. Decisions of a board shall be appealable, and the
legislature shall provide the method of appeal. [ Emphasis added].

The grant of exclusive jurisdiction of certain subject matters to the Board

results in the subtraction of those matters from the district court' s jurisdiction. See

Jones v Board of Ethics for Elected Officials, 96-2005 ( La. 519197), 694 So.2d

171, 172, on reh'g, 96- 2005 ( La. 6120197), 696 So.2d 549. A determination of the

application or interpretation of the Executive Branch Lobbying Act is within the

grant of exclusive jurisdiction of certain subject matter to the Board. See In re

Arnold, 2007- 2342 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5123/ 08), 991 So.2d 531, 537; La. R.S.

49: 78( A); and La. R.S. 42: 1132( D). There are two limited exceptions: where there

is either a challenge to the constitutionality of the provisions of the Executive

Branch Lobbying Act or to the due process procedures employed by the Board.

8 Each lobbyist shall electronically file with the Board his name and business address and the
name and address of each person by whom he is employed and, if different, whose interests he
represents, including the business in which that person is engaged. Additionally, the lobbyist
shall disclose the name of each person by whom he is paid or is to be paid, the amount he is paid
or is to be paid for the purpose of lobbying, and a characterization of such payment as paid,
earned but not received, or prospective. The amounts required to be disclosed are reported by
category of value. See La. R.S. 49.74( A).
7

See Jones, 694 So.2d at 173; Duplandis Y. Louisiana Board of Ethics, 2000- 1750

La. 3123101), 782 So.2d 582, 592.

In its reconventional demand, Access Health requested that the district court

issue a judgment declaring that the fee agreement between it and ABC was void

pursuant to La. R.S. 49:78. 1( B). La. R.S. 49: 78. 1 provides:

A. No person shall enter into a contract to act in a

representative capacity for the purpose of lobbying and fail to register
or fail to file a supplemental registration providing the name and
address of the person by whom he is employed or engaged and, if
different, whose interests he represents pursuant to such contract as
required by this Part.

B. Any person who violates the provisions of Subsection A of
this Section shall have engaged in a misrepresentation sufficient to
defeat or void the contract such person entered into to act in a
representative capacity for the purpose of lobbying. Any effort to
register or to file a supplemental registration after any remedy or relief
relative to such a violation is sought pursuant to any provision of law
shall not be sufficient to reverse the misrepresentation.

C. The [ B] oard shall afford any person accused of violating
Subsection A of this Section a hearing in accordance with the
provisions of Part III of Chapter 15 of Title 42 of the Louisiana
Revised Statutes of 1950. If the [ B] oard finds that a person violated
the provisions of Subsection A of this Section, the ( B] oard shall order
that the contract entered into for the purpose of lobbying by such
person is void and the provisions thereof unenforceable.

D. The provisions of this Section shall be in addition to any
other applicable penalties or any other remedy or relief provided by
law.

ABC contends that because the present litigation neither challenges the

constitutionality of the Executive Branch Lobbying Act nor the due process

procedures of the Board, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to

issue the requested relief Access Health sought in its reconventional demand: i.e., a

judgment declaring the fee agreement between ABC and Access Health is null
because, as set forth in La. R.S. 49: 78. 1, exclusive jurisdiction to do so lies with

the Board.

8

Initially, we note that in River Birch, Inc. a Robin & Associates, Ina,

2004- 1561 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 15/ 05), 906 So.2d 729, writ denied, 2005- 2201 ( La.

2/ 10/ 06), 924 So. 2d 176, this court examined the provisions of the Legislative

Lobbying Act, see La. R.S. 49: 50- 59, which mirrors the Executive Branch

Lobbying Act in seminal ways.' Under the provisions in effect at that time, the

River Birch court determined that, because the Board' s remedies to the imposition

of penalties, there was no civil right of action under the Legislative Lobbying Act,

and it upheld the district court' s conclusion finding the fee agreement between the

unregistered lobbyist and the principal he represented was valid. In reaching its

conclusions, subject matter jurisdiction was presumed. River Birch, Inc., 906

So.2d at 734- 35.

But subsequently, in 2006, the legislature added La. R.S. 49:78. 1 to the

Executive Branch Lobbying Act, the provisions of which expressly provide that

the failure of a lobbyist to register as required under the Executive Branch

Lobbying Act constitutes " a misrepresentation sufficient to defeat or void [ a

contract to act in a representative capacity for the purpose of lobbying]," thereby

empowering the Board with the authority to invalidate a lobbying contract for

misrepresentations arising from the failure of a lobbyist to properly register. In

light of the amendment, River Birch is not dispositive of the issue of subject matter

jurisdiction and the parties' respective reliance on it is misplaced.

In support of its assertion that the district court has subject matter

jurisdiction, Access Health focuses on the language of La. R.S. 49: 78. 1( D), which

states, " The provisions of this Section shall be in addition to any other applicable

penalties or any other remedy or relief provided by law." Access Health interprets

Subsection D to allow relief and remedies for violations beyond the penalties

9 Compare La. R.S. 24:53 & 24: 58. 1 ( legislative lobbying) with La. R.S. 49:74 & 49: 78. 1
executive branch lobbying).
9

imposed by the Board, thus, conferring jurisdiction on the district court to declare

the fee agreement is void and its terms unenforceable. Access Health contends that

if a hearing before the Board is the exclusive remedy for violations of La. R.S.

49: 78. 1, the entirety of subsection ( D) must be ignored, in derogation of the

jurisprudential presumption that every word, sentence, or provision in a statute was

intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect be given to each such

provision, and that the legislature used no unnecessary words or provisions. See

e. g_, Battaglia v. LeBlanc, 2021- 0011 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6117121), 325 So.3d 467,

470, writ denied, 2021- 01025 ( La. 1113121), 326 So. 3d 586, citin Boudreaux v.

Louisiana Dept ofPub Safety and Corrs., 2012- 0239 ( La. 10116/ 12), 101 So.3d

22, 26.

In M.J. Farms, Ltd v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2007- 2371 ( La. 7/ 1108), 998

So.2d 16, 26- 27, our supreme court explained:

The function of statutory interpretation and the construction
given to legislative acts rests with the judicial branch of the
government. The rules of statutory construction are designed to
ascertain and enforce the intent of the Legislature. Legislation is the
solemn expression of legislative will and, thus, the interpretation of
legislation is primarily the search for the legislative intent. We have
often noted the paramount consideration in statutory interpretation is
ascertainment of the legislative intent and the reason or reasons which
prompted the Legislature to enact the law.

The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the
language of the statute itself When a law is clear and unambiguous
and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall
be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in
search of the intent of the legislature. However, when the language of
the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as
having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law.
Moreover, when the words of a law are ambiguous, their meaning
must be sought by examining the context in which they occur and the
text of the law as a whole.

It is also well established that the Legislature is presumed to
enact each statute with deliberation and with full knowledge of all
existing laws on the same subject. Thus, legislative language will be
interpreted on the assumption the Legislature was aware of existing
statutes, well established principles of statutory construction and with
knowledge of the effect of their acts and a purpose in view. It is

T17

equally well settled under our rules of statutory construction, where it
is possible, courts have a duty in the interpretation of a statute to adopt
a construction which harmonizes and reconciles it with other
provisions dealing with the same subject matter. [ Internal citations
and quotation marks omitted.]

La. R.S. 49: 78, which provides for enforcement of the Executive Branch

Lobbying Act by the Board, sets forth in relevant part:

C. The [ Board] shall have the authority to impose and collect
penalties in accordance with the provisions of Part III of Chapter 15 of
Title 42 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1954 for a violation of
this Part. In addition, for recurring or egregious violations of this Part,
the [ Board] may censure any person found guilty of such violation by
the [ Board] and prohibit such person from lobbying for not less than
thirty days and not more than one year.

D. In addition to any other applicable penalties:

1)(a) Any person required to register and who fails to timely
register and any person who fails to timely file any report required by
this Part shall be assessed, pursuant to R.S. 42: 1157, a late fee of fifty
dollars per day.

b) However, any person who fails to timely file a lobbyist
expenditure report filed pursuant to R.S. 24: 55( G) or R.S. 49: 76( G)
which contains all of the information required by this Part and Part III
of Chapter I of Title 24 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950
shall be assessed, pursuant to R.S. 42: 1157, a late fee of fifty dollars
per day.

Any person whose registration or report is filed eleven or
2)
more days after the day on which it was due may be assessed, in
addition to any late fees pursuant to this Section, after a hearing by the
B] oard, a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars.

3) If the [ B] oard determines that a person has filed a
registration or report required by this Part that is inaccurate or
incomplete, the [ B] oard shall mail by certified mail a notice of
delinquency informing the person that the inaccuracy must be
corrected or the missing information must be provided no later than
fourteen business days after receipt of the notice of delinquency. The
notice of delinquency shall include the deadline for correcting the
inaccuracy or providing the missing information. If the person
corrects the inaccuracy or provides the missing information prior to
the deadline contained in the notice of delinquency, no penalties shall
be assessed against the person.

4)Whoever fails to correct the inaccuracy or provide the
missing information by the deadline included in the notice of
delinquency shall be subject to penalties as provided by law.

I1

5) Any person who with knowledge of its falsity files a
registration or report as required in this Part that contains a false
statement or false representation of a material fact shall be subject to
the assessment of the civil penalties provided in Part III of Chapter 15
of Title 421 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, and the
findings of the Board relative to such filing shall be referred by the
Board to the appropriate district attorney for prosecution pursuant to
R. S. 14: 133.

Thus, La. R.S. 49: 78 empowers the Board to impose other remedies and relief in

addition to penalties.

Reading La. R.S. 49:78. 1 alongside La. R.S. 49:78, it is clear that La. R.S.

49:78. 1( D) simply references the other applicable penalties as well as the other

remedies and relief provided in La. R.S. 49: 78( D). Because the provisions of La.

R.S. 49: 78. 1( D) are clear, unambiguous, and their application does not lead to

absurd consequences, subject matter jurisdiction to declare null the fee agreement

between lobbyist ABC and its principal, Access Health, lies exclusively with the

Board. Accordingly, the district court was without jurisdiction to issue a judgment

seeking the relief Access Health sought, i.e., a declaration that the fee agreement
14
between Access Health and ABC was a nullity. Accordingly, the interlocutory

judgments, denying ABC' s lack of subject matter jurisdiction exceptions, issued on

May 20, 2022 and October 24, 2022, are reversed.

Although ABC requests that this court reverse the district court' s conclusion

overruling its exception of prescription insofar as Access Health' s reconventional

demand for a declaration that the fee agreement is null," because the district court

10 On appeal, Access Health suggests the fee agreement' s unenforceability is an affirmative
defense which it is entitled to assert in response to ABC' s breach of contract claim. But ABC
directed the lack of subject matter jurisdiction exceptions at Access Health' s reconventional
demand, which sought a declaration that the fee agreement was null, which is the same relief
Access Health seeks through its affirmative defense. Mindful that the party asserting the
affirmative defense has the burden of proving it, see LAD Services of Louisiana, LLC. v
Superior Derrick Services, L.L.C., 2013- 0163 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 7/ l4), 167 So.3d 746, 756,
writ not considered, 2015- 0086 ( La. 4/ 2/ 15), 162 So. 3d 392, our disposition of the exceptions of
subject matter jurisdiction, therefore, necessarily disposes of Access Health' s affirmative defense
contention.

1 See La. R.S. 49: 78( B) (" No action to enforce any provision of [the Act] shall be commenced
after expiration of two years after the occurrence of the alleged violation.").

12

lacks jurisdiction, the objection is not properly before us. Accordingly, we

pretermit such a discussion. See Peychaud v. Williams, 2021- 0686 ( La. App. 4th

Cir. 4/6/ 22), 337 So.3d 957, 966 ( Reversal of the judgment on the exceptions of

lack of subject matter jurisdiction results in the termination of the action and

pretermission of a review of an exception of prescription is proper). See also Suire

v. Lafayette City -Parish Consolidated Gov' t, 2004- 1459 ( La. 4112105), 907 So.2d

37, 55 ( An appellate court will not render advisory opinions from which no

practical results will follow.).

Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Access Health' s

reconventional demand, which sought a declaration that the fee agreement between

ABC and Access Health was null, it improvidently granted summary judgment.

Accordingly, the district court' s summary judgment dismissal of ABC' s claim for

breach of contract damages is reversed.

DECREE

For these reasons, the district court' s interlocutory judgments are reversed.

Thus, the May 20, 2022 judgment, overruling the exception of lack of subject

matter jurisdiction is reversed along with the May 20, 2022 judgment, granting

summary judgment in favor of Access Health and dismissing ABC' s breach of
contract cause of action based on a conclusion that the fee agreement was null.

Additionally, the writ is granted and the October 24, 2022 judgment, overruling the

exception of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed. The matter is remanded for

further proceedings. Appeal costs are assessed against defendants -appellees,

Access Health, Inc., Preferred Care Services, Inc., and Blue Cross and Blue Shield

of Alabama.

MAY 20, 2022 JUDGMENTS REVERSED. WRIT GRANTED AND
OCTOBER 249 2022 JUDGMENT REVERSED. REMANDED.

13