H&o Investments, Llc v. Parish Of Jefferson, Through Its Parish President, Cynthia Lee Sheng And Opterra Solutions, Inc. F/k/a Natrurechem, Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 20, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
H&O INVESTMENTS, LLC
VS.
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, THROUGH ITS
PARISH PRESIDENT, CYNTHIA LEE
SHENG AND OPTERRA SOLUTIONS, INC.
F/K/A NATRURECHEM, INC.
No. 2025-CC-00086
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Parish of Jefferson - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 838- 871, Court of
Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 24-C-554;
_ _ _ _ _ _
May 20, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., dissents.
WJC
JLW
JDH
JBM
JMG
CRC
05/20/2025 "See News Release 024 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-CC-00086
H&O INVESTMENTS, LLC
VS.
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, THROUGH ITS PARISH PRESIDENT,
CYNTHIA LEE SHENG AND OPTERRA SOLUTIONS, INC. F/K/A
NATRURECHEM, INC.
On Supervisory Writ to the 24th Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson
PER CURIAM
The Parish of Jefferson (“Parish”) seeks review of an October 15, 2024
judgment of the district court overruling its exception of no cause of action as to
plaintiff’s claims for negligent professional undertaking and unjust enrichment.
The doctrine of negligent professional undertaking is not based on statutory
law but was instead jurisprudentially created. The courts which have applied it have
done so in instances where there is a lack of contractual privity between the parties.
See, e.g., Lathan Co., Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Educ., Recovery Sch. Dist., 2016-0913
(La. App. 1 Cir. 12/6/17), 237 So. 3d 1, 9, writ denied, 2018-0026 (La. 3/9/18),
237 So. 3d 1191 (explaining the parties were “not in direct contractual
privity. . . .”). That situation is distinguishable from the facts of the instant case,
where it is undisputed that there was a valid contract between plaintiff and the
Parish. Accordingly, without passing on the viability of the doctrine under
Louisiana law, we find plaintiff has failed to allege a cause of action for negligent
professional undertaking.
Similarly, we find plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for
unjust enrichment. One of the prerequisites to establish a cause of action for
unjust enrichment is “an absence of justification or cause for the
enrichment or impoverishment .” Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 251
La. 624,
652, 205 So. 2d 422, 432 (1967). If a contract exists between the parties, the
contract is the law

2

between them and serves as a legal cause or justification for the enrichment.
Edwards v. Conforto, 636 So. 2d 901, 907 (La. 1993) (on rehearing); Edmonston v.
A-Second Mortg age Co. of Slidell , 289 So. 2d 116, 122 (La. 1974) . Because a
contract exists between plaintiff and the Parish, plaintiff has failed to state a cause
of action for unjust enrichment.
Accordingly, we find the district court erred in overruling the Parish’s
exception of no cause of action . W e hereby sustain the Parish’s exception and
dismiss plaintiff’s suit against the Parish with prejudice.1

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
October 15, 2024 judgment of the district court is reversed insofar as it overruled the
exception of no cause of action filed by the Parish of Jefferson. The exception of no
cause of action is hereby sustained, and plaintiff’s action against the Parish of
Jefferson is dismissed with prejudice.

1 Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 934, a court sustaining a peremptory exception, such as an
exception of no cause of action, should permit the petitioner to amend their petition when the
ground thereof for the exception can be removed by amendment. Howeve r, amendment is not
permitted when such would constitute a vain and useless act. See Antonio Le Mon v. Nat'l Football
League, 2019-1264, p. 4 (La. 9/6/19), 277 So. 3d 1166, 1169; Alexander and Alexander, Inc. v.
State, Div. of Administration , 486 So. 2d 95, 100 (La. 1986). Under the facts presented, the
objections raised by the Parish may not be removed by amendment.