Cajun Restaurant & Bar, Inc. v. Maurin-Ogden 1978 Pinhook Plaza
Docket: No. 89-768
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 5, 1991; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made concerning a judgment that upheld exceptions of prescription against claims of unfair trade practices and tortious interference with business by Cajun Restaurant Bar, Inc. and Thomas E. D’Antoni (plaintiffs) against Maurin-Ogden-1978-Pinhook Plaza (defendant). The plaintiffs leased commercial space from Maurin-Ogden on September 1, 1981, for their restaurant Poet’s but defaulted on rent and insurance payments in 1986, leading to the restaurant's closure on June 7, 1986. Maurin-Ogden subsequently sued for breach of lease, resulting in an eviction judgment on September 29, 1986, and a judgment for past due rent and attorney's fees on December 15, 1986.
The sheriff seized Cajun’s assets under a writ of fieri facias, and Maurin-Ogden purchased them at a sheriff's sale on July 8, 1987. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for damages on July 5, 1988, alleging unfair trade practices and tortious interference, claiming Maurin-Ogden's refusal to accept a proposed lease assignment led to their business's failure. The trial court granted exceptions of prescription, ruling that the sheriff's sale was a legal action and not part of any unfair trade practice or tortious conduct. The court found that the plaintiffs had other legal avenues to contest the sale if it had been improperly conducted. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that both claims had prescribed.
The Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Law (La.R.S. 51:1409(A)) allows individuals who suffer ascertainable losses due to unfair or deceptive practices to file private actions for actual damages, but not in a representative capacity. The prescription period for these actions is one year from the date of the incident that caused the loss (La.R.S. 51:1409(E)). The law is penal and requires strict interpretation, as established in Coffey v. Peoples Mortg. Loan of Shreveport, Inc.
In the specific case, the trial judge ruled that a judicial sale, conducted properly, did not constitute an abuse of process or an unfair trade practice, despite Maurin-Ogden being the judgment creditor and the successful bidder on the property of the judgment debtor. Maurin-Ogden's actions were authorized under La.C.C.P. art. 2291 and La.C.C.P. art. 2339, which permit the seizing creditor to bid at a judicial sale. The court determined that the prescription period for the unfair trade practice claim began in September 1986, and since the suit was filed nearly two years later, the claim was prescribed. Additionally, the court ruled that the incident did not amount to a continuous tort, as the alleged injury stemmed from a single act regarding the rejection of the lease assignment. The ruling was affirmed at the appellant's costs.
