Cooper v. Festiva Resorts, LLC

Citations: 171 So. 3d 1058; 2015 WL 3789519Docket: Nos. 2015-C-0159

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 3, 2015; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge, addresses two lawsuits involving approximately 160 plaintiffs against defendants Festiva Resorts, LLC and Festiva Development Group, LLC, related to memberships in a points-based vacation club. Defendants filed an exception of improper cumulation of actions and/or improper joinder of parties, which was granted in the Cooper action but denied in the Adams action. Plaintiffs appealed the decision from the Cooper action, while defendants sought supervisory review of the Adams ruling. The court reversed the judgment granting the exception in the Cooper case and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming the denial of the exception in the Adams case.

The Cooper action, filed on November 27, 2013, involved 86 plaintiffs, while the Adams action, initiated on May 27, 2014, involved an additional 80 plaintiffs, both alleging deceptive sales practices by Festiva. Plaintiffs claimed they were pressured into purchasing memberships without fully understanding the contracts, were not given necessary documents, faced unavailability of promised accommodations, and incurred undisclosed fees. They sought rescission of the contracts, return of funds, damages, and other remedies. Following hearings, the actions resulted in conflicting rulings regarding the exception, leading to the current appeals.

Plaintiffs argue that the judgment granting the Exception is reversible based on Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) Article 463, which allows for the joining of multiple parties in a lawsuit if they share a community of interest, the actions are within the court's jurisdiction, and all actions are consistent and follow the same procedure. The court found that the second and third elements were satisfied since the sales occurred in New Orleans and the claims used the same procedure. However, the primary issue is whether the plaintiffs share a community of interest. 

Judge Brown acknowledged the commonality among the claims, but determined that a mass joinder was inappropriate due to varying factual circumstances required to establish liability against Festiva. For a community of interest to exist, the actions must arise from the same facts or present similar issues. Although the plaintiffs’ claims reflect overlapping factual and legal issues, as all attended sales presentations and signed contracts with Festiva, the court maintained that the underlying facts would differ significantly among plaintiffs.

The court recognized its discretion under C.C.P. Article 465 to separate trials if it would simplify proceedings or serve justice. Consequently, Judge Brown dismissed the action without prejudice. While Article 464 allows for dismissal when jurisdiction or venue is improper, it also permits separate trials or requiring plaintiffs to elect which actions to continue when cumulation is improper for other reasons. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy would be to order separate trials or to have the plaintiffs choose which claims to pursue.

Judge Brown's ruling on the improper cumulation of actions has been reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Adams Action Festiva's writ application claims Judge Griffin incorrectly found the plaintiffs' claims suitable for joinder and failed to either dismiss the lawsuit or sever the claims into individual actions. Festiva argues that the trial court focused too narrowly on one plaintiff's cause of action and one aspect of its defense regarding the community-of-interest element. Additionally, Festiva asserts that the trial court improperly considered judicial economy in its analysis of joinder, as this factor is not statutorily recognized. The court found no abuse of discretion in Judge Griffin's denial of the Exception in the Adams action, leading to the affirmation of the judgment. 

The decree states that the judgment concerning Festiva's exception of improper cumulation and/or improper joinder is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The consolidated writ application is granted, and the judgment in the Adams action is affirmed. As of June 13, 2014, the Cooper action comprises eighty-four plaintiffs, while the Adams action has seventy-six plaintiffs following the dismissal of four. 

Judge Brown's prior judgment deferred the Exception for thirty days to allow the parties to propose a consolidation plan, which ultimately was unsuccessful. The Exception was granted on September 4, 2014, after the dismissal of additional plaintiffs due to jurisdictional and venue issues. The court emphasizes that it can only review evidence within the appellate record, limiting its consideration of additional exhibits presented by the plaintiffs that are not part of the record. Plaintiffs maintain that despite different presentations by employees, the underlying contract was consistent, which Judge Brown seemed to acknowledge by suggesting potential for joinder instead of multiple lawsuits.

A requirement for closer commonality among claimants is noted, with Judge Brown deferring her ruling post-Exception hearing to allow parties 30 days to develop a mutually-agreeable plan for consolidating individual claimants into sub-groups. Plaintiffs argued that these sub-groups were unnecessary due to existing commonalities among all claims, but their attempts were unsuccessful, leading Judge Brown to grant the Exception. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 464 and 465 dictate that the trial court must order separate trials, not the parties. As the trial judge, it is Judge Brown's duty to create sub-groups if it would simplify proceedings, enable orderly case disposition, or serve justice. Additionally, some cases cited by Festiva relate to the cumulation of actions rather than parties, making Festiva's reliance on those cases inappropriate.