Rachel Breaux v. Louisiana Stadium & Exposition District, Smg, Landmark Event Staffing Services, Inc., and Jane Doe

RACHEL BREAUX * NO. 2024-C-0126

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
LOUISIANA STADIUM & *
EXPOSITION DISTRICT, SMG, FOURTH CIRCUIT
LANDMARK EVENT *
STAFFING SERVICES, INC., STATE OF LOUISIANA
AND JANE DOE *******

APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2016-00689, DIVISION “C”
Honorable Sidney H. Cates, Judge
******
Judge Rosemary Ledet
******
(Court composed of Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge
Dale N. Atkins)

Dennis J. Phayer
BURGLASS, TANKERSLEY, GAUDIN, AND PHAYER, LLC
5213 Airline Drive
Metairie, LA 70001

Phyllis E. Glazer
Taylor M. Simon
Angelo O’Brien
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1885 N Third Street, 3rd Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70802

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/RELATORS

D. Russell Holwadel
Heather A. England Reznik
ADAMS RUSSELL HOLWADEL, LLC
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2450
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED AND RENDERED
APRIL 4, 2024

RML
SCJ
DNA Relators — SMG and Jameika Gleason — seek supervisory review of the

trial court’s January 30, 2024 judgment, denying their exception of no right of

action. We grant Relators’ writ. Based on our review of the record, the Respondent

– Rachel Breaux – is judicially estopped from recovering damages through the

instant litigation. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s judgment on Relators’

exception of no right of action.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 20, 2012, Rachael Breaux (“Ms. Breaux”) filed a voluntary petition

for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana. As with most Chapter 13 bankruptcy plans, Ms. Breaux

agreed to certain terms and conditions to satisfy her creditors. As a part of these

terms, Ms. Breaux signed a Certification of Notice to Consumer Debtors under 11

U.S.C. § 342(b). The notice stated the following:

WARNING: Section 521(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code
requires that you promptly file detailed information regarding your
creditors, assets, liabilities, income, expenses and general financial
condition. Your bankruptcy case may be dismissed if this information
is not filed with the court within the time deadlines set by the
Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, and the local rules of the
court.

1

The above excerpt was confirmed as a condition of Ms. Breaux’s bankruptcy plan

by court order (the “Court Order”). The Court Order also mandated that Ms.

Breaux abide by the following:

IT IS ORDERED:

[…]

That all…proceeds from lawsuits or settlements…shall be turned over
to the trustee for administration.

That the debtor shall provide to the trustee, at least once every six
months until the case is closed, a report on the status of any pending
or potential lawsuit in which the debtor is or may be a plaintiff.

In essence, the totality of Ms. Breaux’s responsibilities required her to disclose

information regarding contingent and potential claims during the effective period

of the bankruptcy plan. The bankruptcy was not closed until 2017.

While her bankruptcy was open, Ms. Breaux was allegedly injured by

Jameika Gleason (“Ms. Gleason”), an employee of SMG, during a New Orleans

Saints preseason game at the Superdome. Ms. Breaux later filed a petition for

damages against the Relators in connection with this incident.1 She failed to report

both the accident and the filing of a lawsuit to the bankruptcy trustee. Ms. Breaux

also did not disclose a separate lawsuit arising from an automobile accident in

2015.

In response, Relators filed a peremptory exception of no right of action.

Relators asserted that Ms. Breaux is judicially estopped from pursuing damages

because she failed to notify the bankruptcy court that she had an interest in this

1 Ms. Breaux also named Louisiana Stadium & Exposition District and Landmark Event Staffing

Services, Inc. as defendants, but they were not party to the Relators’ Exception of No Right of
Action.

2

litigation in accordance with her Chapter 13 plan. After a hearing, the trial court

denied Relators’ exception of no right of action. This writ followed.

DISCUSSION

Relators argue that Ms. Breaux did not comply with her duty under the

Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan to disclose any pending or potential lawsuits. As a

consequence of this failure to disclose, Ms. Breaux is judicially estopped from

seeking damages from Relators through this action. We agree.

“[I]n determining whether the trial court was legally correct in sustaining the

exception, an appellate court is required to conduct a de novo review.” DLN

Holdings, L.L.C. v. Guglielmo, 2021-0640, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/29/22), 366 So.

3d 461, 466-467. Here, Relators seek review of the trial court’s denial of their

exception of no right of action. The denial was based on the finding that Ms.

Breaux was not judicially estopped from bringing forth this lawsuit. Because

judicial estoppel was raised by the Relators in the context of a bankruptcy case,

federal law applies here. See Tates v. Integrated Prod. Servs., Inc., 51,574, p. 6

(La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So. 3d 716, 720 (citing Thomas v. Economy Premier

Assur. Co., 50,638, p. 6 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/18/16), 196 So.3d 7, 12).

“Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity

of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions

according to the exigencies of the moment.” Webb v. Webb, 2018-0320, p. 9 (La.

12/5/18), 263 So. 3d 321, 328 (quoting Miller v. Conagra, Inc., 2008-0021, p. 9

(La. 9/8/08), 991 So. 2d 445, 452). “Federal courts review judicial estoppel

determinations for abuse of discretion.” Id.

A court may apply judicial estoppel if the following circumstances are

present: 1) the party against whom judicial estoppel is sought has asserted a legal

3

position that is plainly inconsistent with a prior position, 2) a court accepted the

prior position, and 3) the party did not act inadvertently. See Reed v. City of

Arlington, 650 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “With bankruptcy

cases, this inconsistent position requirement is generally met when a debtor does

not disclose an asset to the bankruptcy court, but then pursues a claim in a separate

tribunal based on the undisclosed asset.” Tates v. Integrated Prod. Servs., Inc.,

51,574, p. 6 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So.3d 716, 720 (citing Allen v. C&H

Distributors, 813 F.3d 566, 572 (5th Cir. 2016)).

A non-disclosure is “inadvertent” when the estopped party was unaware of

the facts giving rise to his claim or no motive for concealment existed. See Miller

v. Conagra, Inc., 2008-0021, pp. 9–10 (La. 9/8/08), 991 So.2d 445, 452 (citing

Jethroe v. Omnova Solutions, Inc., 412 F.3d 598, 601 (5th Cir. 2005)). To show a

lack of knowledge, it is not enough for a party to show that he did not know he had

a duty to disclose his claim. See United States ex rel. Bias v. Tangipahoa Par. Sch.

Bd., 766 Fed.Appx. 38 (5th Cir.2019).

Here, the first element for judicial estoppel is met because Ms. Breaux

represented to the bankruptcy court that she did not have any potential or pending

claims; but she filed three lawsuits while her Chapter 13 plan was in effect.

The second element is met because the bankruptcy court discharged Ms.

Breaux after five years of payments under the belief that she did not have any state

claims.

Finally, the third requirement is met because the non-disclosure of the

lawsuits was not inadvertent. The court order mandated that Ms. Breaux “provide

to the trustee, at least once every six months until the case is closed, a report on the

4

status of any pending or potential lawsuit in which the debtor is or may be a

plaintiff.”

At the hearing on Relators’ exception of no right of action, Ms. Breaux

testified that although the Court Order directed her to notify the trustee about “any

pending or potential lawsuits”, she did not remember or know that she had to

report any of the accidents resulting in litigation. The Fifth Circuit held in In Re

Bias that a lack of knowledge is not sufficient to show inadvertence. Her testimony

does not meet this threshold. Ms. Breaux had to prove that she was unaware of the

facts giving rise to her claims – the specific facts of the three accidents. Her

knowledge of these facts is evident from the filing of the lawsuits in which she

sought to recover for the injuries allegedly sustained in the same three accidents.

The third element of judicial estoppel is met.

Thus, the three elements of judicial estoppel are met and the trial court erred

in failing to grant Relators’ exception of no right of action.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we grant Relators’ writ, reverse the trial court’s

judgment denying the Relators’ exception of no right of action, and render

judgment sustaining the exception of no right of action and dismissing this suit.

WRIT GRANTED; JUDGMENT REVERSED AND RENDERED

5