Q&A, LLC et al v. Allen Maxwell & Silver, Inc.
Filing
95
ORDER AND REASONS granting 86 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 07/17/2014. (kac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Q&A, LLC, and WILLIAM J. NEWTON
both individually and o/b/o WILLIAM &
ASSOCIATES NORTH AMERICA, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13‐4681
ALLEN MAXWELL & SILVER, INC.
SECTION ʺCʺ (3)
ORDER
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Rec. Doc.
86. In it, defendant argues that plaintiffs’ claim for negligent supervision should be
dismissed either because it is in reality a claim for negligent interference with a contract
which is not recognized under Louisiana law, or because their negligent supervision
claim even if cognizable and proven, could not have been the legal cause of plaintiff’s
alleged losses. Plaintiffs do not contest the merit of this motion. Rec. Doc. 90. Having
considered the record, the law, and the submissions of both parties, the Court accepts
both arguments made by defendant.
Summary judgment is warranted when “the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
1
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fortiori, it is warranted where controlling
precedent forecloses any possibility of recovery.
As defendant has correctly argued, plaintiffs’ claim for negligent supervision is
actually a claim for negligent interference with contractual relations. Plaintiff Newton
alleges that he had a consulting contract with defendant, under which he was owed
certain bonuses and compensation tied to the performance of defendant’s Louisiana
office. Rec. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 14, 25(e), 25(f). His negligent supervision claim is, in essence, that
defendant negligently supervised its New Jersey managers leading to a decrease in
Louisiana profits, and therefore bonuses owed under the consulting agreement. See id.,
¶¶ 46‐55; see also Rec. Docs. 86‐6, 86‐7.
Louisiana law does not allow tortious interference with contract to be predicated
on negligence. See generally, e.g., Wiltz v. Bayer CropScience, Ltd. P’ship, 645 F.3d 690, 701
(5th Cir. 2011) (discussing Lousiana’s unwillingness to recognize claim for negligent
interference with contractual relations). Further plaintiff has failed to name any specific
corporate officer or agent responsible for the interference, which would be required to
state a claim of intentional interference with a contract. See 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v.
Spurney, 538 So. 2d 228, 234 (La. 1989). Moreover, the damages that plaintiff is
2
attempting to claim on account of this alleged negligence are too attenuated from the
conduct in question to serve as a basis for recovery.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment is GRANTED. Rec. Doc. 86.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 17th day of July, 2014.
___________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?