Dr. Joe W. Aguillard v. Louisiana College

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

18-946

DR. JOE W. AGUILLARD

VERSUS

LOUISIANA COLLEGE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 261,386
HONORABLE MONIQUE F. RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Van H. Kyzar,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Billy R. Pesnell
J. Whitney Pesnell
W. Alan Pesnell
The Pesnell Law Firm, A P.L.C.
P. O. Box 1794
Shreveport, LA 71166-1794
(318) 226-5577
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Dr. Joe W. Aguillard

Charles S. Weems, III
Jonathan D. Stokes
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell
P. O. Box 6118
Alexandria, LA 71307-6118
(318) 445-6471
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Louisiana College

SAUNDERS, Judge.

This appeal comes to this court from a judgment granting exceptions of no

cause of action and res judicata and dismissing a petition to annul a judgment

confirming an arbitration award. The arbitration award was in favor of a college in

a wrongful termination suit brought against the college by its former president and

tenured faculty member. We find no error by the trial court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Plaintiff/Appellant, Joe Aguillard (Aguillard), became the president of

defendant/appellee, Louisiana College (Louisiana College) on January 18, 2005.

Aguillard served in that capacity until April 15, 2014, when he became “president

emeritus” of Louisiana College and a fully tenured member of the faculty at

Louisiana College per written employment agreement.

In March 2016, following notice, a due process hearing before a faculty

committee of his peers, and an appeal to the Board of Trustees, Aguillard was fired

as president emeritus and tenured professor. Aguillard filed suit alleging tort and

contract issues against Louisiana College and others. Per their agreement, Aguillard

and Louisiana College entered into arbitration. In October 2016, the arbitration

panel dismissed, with prejudice, the breach of contract, wrongful termination, and

detrimental reliance claims filed by Aguillard against Louisiana College. This

arbitration award was confirmed by a consent judgment signed by both Aguillard

and Louisiana College in September 2017. This confirmation judgment became a

final judgment after all time limits for appeal or modification had run.

In March 2018, Aguillard filed a petition to annul the judgment confirming

the arbitration award under La.Code Civ.P. art. 2004 against Louisiana College.

Aguillard’s petition alleges that Louisiana College’s failure to inform him of its

acceptance of a $10,000,000.00 donation subject to the condition that he remain

“President Emeritus” of Louisiana College for at least five years was an ill practice

because, at arbitration, Louisiana College claimed that Aguillard was employed at

will versus his employment having a term. Aguillard contended that Louisiana

College’s acceptance of the donation served as a stipulation pour autrui that

amended his employment contract to have a term. As such, Aguillard alleged that

Louisiana College’s ill practice was violating its continuing duty to disclose this

information to him, the arbitration panel, and the court.

In response, Louisiana College pointed out that Aguillard was fired for cause.

Accordingly, whether his contract had a term is not relevant, and “[a]rticle 2004

dictates that a judgment will not be annulled on account of fraud or ill practice in the

course of a legal proceeding if the fraud or ill practice pertained to a matter irrelevant

to the basis of the decision.” Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 01-149, p. 7 (La.

10/16/01), 800 So.2d 762, 767. This is true because, under those circumstances, the

judgment “was not obtained by fraud or ill practice.” Id.

Moreover, Louisiana College states that even if Aguillard’s amended petition

was taken as true, the ill practice alleged related to the arbitration proceeding and its

award. As such, Louisiana College, citing Napolitano v. Gill, 12-206 (La. 5/4/12),

88 So.3d 446, filed exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata based on the

untimeliness of Aguillard’s initial petition to annul and the fact that Aguillard’s

allegations relate to the arbitration award, not the confirmation judgment.

The trial court granted these exceptions, dismissing Aguillard’s petition to

annul. Aguillard appeals this judgment of the trial court and assigns two errors.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR:

1. The Trial Court erred in sustaining Defendant’s Exception of No
Cause of Action filed in response to a Petition to Annul Judgment
under La. Code Civ. P. art. 2004 and in dismissing Plaintiff’s
Petition to Annul Judgment, as amended, with prejudice.

2

2. The Trial Court erred in sustaining Defendant’s Exception of Res
Judicata based upon the Trial Court’s judgment confirming the
Arbitration Panel’s Award which Plaintiff was seeking to annul
under La. Code Civ. P. art. 2004.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE:

Aguillard’s first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in sustaining

Louisiana College’s exception of no cause of action and in dismissing his petition to

annul judgment, as amended, with prejudice. We find no merit to this assignment

of error.

Our supreme court, in Ramey v. DeCaire, 03-1299, pp. 7-8 (La. 3/19/04), 869

So.2d 114, 118-19 (citations omitted), stated the following:

A cause of action, when used in the context of the peremptory
exception, is defined as the operative facts that give rise to the
plaintiff’s right to judicially assert the action against the defendant. The
function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the
legal sufficiency of the petition, which is done by determining whether
the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading. No
evidence may be introduced to support or controvert an exception of no
cause of action. Consequently, the court reviews the petition and
accepts well-pleaded allegations of fact as true. The issue at the trial of
the exception is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is
legally entitled to the relief sought.

Louisiana has chosen a system of fact pleading. Therefore, it is
not necessary for a plaintiff to plead the theory of his case in the petition.
However, the mere conclusions of the plaintiff unsupported by facts
does not set forth a cause of action.

The burden of demonstrating that the petition states no cause of
action is upon the mover. In reviewing the judgment of the district court
relating to an exception of no cause of action, appellate courts should
conduct a de novo review because the exception raises a question of law
and the lower court’s decision is based solely on the sufficiency of the
petition. The pertinent question is whether, in the light most favorable
to plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in plaintiff’s behalf, the
petition, states any valid cause of action for relief.

In the case before us, Aguillard filed his amended petition alleging a violation

of La.Code Civ.P. art. 2004. That single alleged violation is that Louisiana College’s

failure to inform him of its acceptance of a $10,000,000.00 donation subject to the
3

condition that he remain “President Emeritus” of Louisiana College for at least five

years was an ill practice because, at arbitration, Louisiana College claimed that

Aguillard was employed at will versus his employment contract containing a term

of five years.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2004 states:

A. A final judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices may be
annulled.

B. An action to annul a judgment on these grounds must be
brought within one year of the discovery by the plaintiff in the nullity
action of the fraud or ill practices.

C. The court may award reasonable attorney fees incurred by the
prevailing party in an action to annul a judgment on these grounds.

In Napolitano, 88 So.3d at 446-47 (emphasis added), the Louisiana Supreme

Court stated:

This matter arises from a dispute between attorneys over fees.
After arbitration, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff 50% of the fees in the
underlying litigation. Plaintiff then filed a proceeding in the district
court to confirm the arbitration. After a contradictory hearing at which
both attorneys appeared, the district court rendered judgment on
November 19, 2010, confirming the arbitrator’s award. Defendant did
not move for a new trial, nor did he file a motion and order for appeal.
Three months later, on February 9, 2011, defendant filed a petition to
annul the judgment of the arbitrator, alleging the arbitrator erred in
prohibiting one of defendant’s witnesses from testifying during the
arbitration, and erred in determining the amount of fees that should be
divided. Plaintiff responded by filing an exception of no cause of action.
The district court overruled the exception, and the court of appeal
denied plaintiff’s request for supervisory review. Plaintiff then sought
review in this court.

In essence, defendant’s petition alleges the arbitration award
should be annulled because the arbitrator failed to allow one of his
witnesses to testify. Such a ground might arguably be a basis for
vacating the award under La. R.S. 9:4210(C), which provides an award
may be vacated “[w]here the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in
refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in
refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy,
or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
prejudiced.” However, La. R.S. 9:4213 provides such a motion must be
filed within three months after the arbitrator’s award is filed or

4

delivered. Defendant’s petition to annul was filed well outside of this
time period.

As a result, defendant’s remedy would be limited to an action for
nullity of the district court’s judgment on the basis of fraud or ill
practices under La.Code Civ. P. art. 2001 et seq. Nothing in defendant’s
petition for nullity alleges fraud or ill practices in connection with the
district court’s judgment.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the district
court is reversed, and plaintiff’s exception of no cause of action is
granted. Pursuant to La.Code Civ. P. art. 934, the case is remanded to
district court to determine whether the objection may be removed by
amendment of the petition, and if so, to set an appropriate delay for
amendment. La.R.S. 9:4213.

Here, Aguillard’s petition to annul was filed on March 19, 2018. The

arbitrator’s award was filed or delivered on October 6, 2017. Thus, as was the case

in Napolitano, Aguillard’s petition to annul was filed more than three months after

the arbitrator’s award was delivered. As such, according to Napolitano, Aguillard’s

remedy is limited to an action for nullity of the trial court’s judgment. Nothing in

Aguillard’s amended petition alleges fraud or ill practices in connection with the

trial court’s judgment confirming the arbitrator’s findings. Therefore, like in

Napolitano, Louisiana College’s exception of no cause of action was properly

granted by the trial court and must be upheld by this court.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO:

Aguillard’s second assignment of error is that the trial court erred in sustaining

Louisiana College’s exception of res judicata. Our finding in Assignment of Error

Number One that the trial court property dismissed Aguillard’s amended petition for

failing to state a cause of action renders this assignment of error moot. As such, any

adjudication of this assignment of error would have no practical value.

CONCLUSION:

Joe Aguillard raises two assignments of error. We find no merit in the first

and uphold the trial court’s grant of Louisiana College’s exception of no cause of
5

action. This finding renders Aguillard’s second assigned error moot. All costs of

these proceedings are assessed to Joe Aguillard.

AFFIRMED.

6