Painter v. Suire

Filing 25

RULING denying 9 and 13 Motions to Dismiss and Special Motions to Strike. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 3/18/2014. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MURPHY PAINTER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
NO. 12-CV-00511-SDD-SCR
KELLI SUIRE
RULING
I.

INTRODUCTION
This is a state law defamation suit brought by Murphy Painter, the former head of

Louisiana’s Alcohol and Tobacco Control Commission (“ATC”), who alleges that his
former Administrative Assistant, Kelli Suire, defamed him publically and in state court
proceedings when she accused him of sexually harassing her in the workplace.1 In
unrelated state court proceedings, Painter alleged that he lost his ATC job because he
refused to grant a liquor license to a political friend of the Governor.2 In this suit, Painter
alleges that he lost his job as the ATC chief and that his reputation has been tarnished
because of defamatory allegations of sexual harassment by Suire.3 Suire moves for
dismissal of Painter’s suit on the grounds of prescription and for failure to state a claim

1

On August 12, 2011, Painter filed this defamation lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court in Ascension
Parish. Painter brings claims against Suire for defamation and for negligence under article 2315 of the
Louisiana Civil Code. Painter alleges that, because of Suire’s defamatory allegations of workplace
harassment, he was terminated from his position as the ATC Commissioner and his reputation has been
tarnished, resulting in loss of income and impairment of his ability to gain re-employment. Rec. Doc. 1-5,
p. 8, ¶51; p. 9, ¶58.
2
Murphy J. Painter v. State of Louisiana, et al., 19th Judicial District Court, Division D, Suit Number
604,308.
3
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 9, ¶¶ 58-61.
DM 1155

1

for which relief can be granted.4 Alternatively, Suire moves to strike Painter’s claims as
running afoul of Louisiana’s Anti-SLAPP law.5
II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant Suire timely removed Painter’s suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, et

seq.6 Upon examination of the allegations, the Court concludes that it has subject
matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
In March of 2010, the Louisiana Department of Revenue (“LDR”) investigated
Suire’s allegations of workplace harassment against her boss, Murphy Painter.7 In
support of his allegations that he was defamed by Suire, Painter cites LDR’s
investigative findings, that:
Based upon the information gathered during the investigation, LDR has
determined Painter’s actions did not violate the LDR’s Anti-Harassment
Policy set forth in PPM 10.3. This finding is based upon information
secured during your [Suire’s] interview wherein you [Suire] indicated
Painter did not make unwelcome sexual advances toward you. You also
indicated Painter did not request sexual favors or engage in verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature to you. Additionally, you also stated
that your complaint against Painter was not one of sexual harassment.8
Painter alleges that in July of 2010, Suire took her allegations against him to the
media9 and that in August of 2010, Suire’s allegations were further perpetuated in an
email sent from [e-mail] to several media outlets.10

Notably,

Plaintiff does not allege that Suire sent this email.11 Painter alleges that Suire continued

4

Rec. Docs. 9 and.13.
La. C.C.P. art. 971.
6
Rec. Doc. 1.
7
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 4, ¶¶20-21.
8
LDR letter of findings to Suire dated March 29, 2010 Rec. Doc. 1-5, pp. 4-5, ¶22.
9
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 5, ¶25.
10
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 5, ¶26.
11
Plaintiff alleges that the email “was evidently sent from a computer located in the Louisiana State
Library, which is located near the Pentagon Barracks.” Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 5, ¶28.
5

DM 1155

2

to defame him in a state court law suit she filed against Painter alleging unlawful
employment practices.12
According to Painter, on August 13, 2010, the Governor called for Painter’s
resignation from the ATC because of a pending criminal investigation involving
Painter.13 Painter refused to resign.14 Thereafter, Painter learned that he was also the
subject of an investigation by the Louisiana’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) which
Painter says was “focused, in part, on the defamatory allegations of Ms. Suire.”15 On
August 16, 2010, the OIG sought and was granted a search warrant for Painter’s ATC
office.16

According to Painter, the OIG’s search warrant application reported that

“[w]hile Ms. Suire was still employed at the La. ATC, he directly asked her to come
sleep at his house. He has made numerous requests to her to become involved in a
romantic relationship.”17

Although the statements made in the search warrant

application are not directly attributed to Suire, Plaintiff argues that these statements
were false, misleading, and contradictory to Defendant’s earlier position in the
Department of Revenue’s investigation.18
On August 26, 2010, Suire filed a Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and
Injunctive Relief (Petition) supported by an Affidavit of Irreparable Harm against Painter
in state court.19 Painter contends that Suire made false and misleading allegations
against him in the injunction pleadings and other state court documents, including her

12

Kellie E. Suire v. Murphy Painter, 19th Judicial District Court, Division 27, Suit Number 594,000.
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 6, ¶¶ 34-35.
14
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 6, ¶37.
15
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 7, ¶¶39-40.
16
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 7, ¶43.
17
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 7, ¶44.
18
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 7, ¶¶45-46.
19
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 8, ¶47; Rec. Doc. 13-2, Exhibit 2.
13

DM 1155

3

November 3, 2010 state court Supplemental and Amending Petition20 in which Suire
alleged that Painter made “[c]onstant comments” about Suire’s clothing and “her
buttocks, her chest, and her body, all of a sexually explicit nature,” and that he
propositioned her to “sleep with him at his house [and] accompany him to his hotel
room”.21
On July 7, 2011, without seeking leave of Court, Painter reconvened against
Suire in her state court suit for defamation.22

The next day, July 8, 2011, Suire

dismissed her state court suit “against the LDR, ATC, and Murphy Painter individually
and in his official capacity.”23 Painter asserts that he did not dismiss his state court
reconventional demand for defamation and that his state court reconventional demand
serves to interrupt prescription on his defamation claims herein.
III.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings
Because Defendant Suire filed an Answer24 before filing her Motions to Dismiss,

her Motions are converted to Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings under Rule 12(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion for judgment on the pleadings under
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is evaluated on the same basis as a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).25

20

Rec. Doc. 13-2, pp. 23-28; Rec. Doc. 11, p. 4, ¶48(a).
Rec. Doc. 11, p. 4, ¶¶48(a)-48(b).
22
Painter argues that the allegations in his state court Reconvention are “essentially identical” to the
allegations in this suit. Rec. Doc. 12, p. 6. n. 2. The Court notes that this presents issues of comity and lis
pendens, but these issues need not be reached by the Court.
23
Joint Motion to Dismiss filed July 8, 2011. Rec. Doc.1-5, pp. 36-37. A Judgment was rendered on July
12, 2011, reflecting the same. Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 8. Painter’s allegation that this settlement and dismissal
only concerned him in his official capacity is unsupported by the facts. Rec. Doc. 11, p. 5, ¶48(d).
24
Rec. Doc. 2.
25
Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 543-44 (5th Cir. 2010)(citing Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418
th
(5 Cir. 2008)).
21

DM 1155

4

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he ‘court accepts all wellpleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’”26 The
Court may consider “the complaint, its proper attachments, documents incorporated into
the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.”27 “To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead ‘enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”28 In Twombly, the United States Supreme
Court set forth the basic criteria necessary for a complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds
of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”29

A complaint is also

insufficient if it merely “tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’”30 However, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads the
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.”31 In order to satisfy the plausibility standard, the
plaintiff must show “more than a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted
unlawfully.”32 “Furthermore, while the court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, it

26

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007)(quoting Martin K. Eby Constr.
Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004)).
27
Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2011)(quoting Dorsey v. Portfolio
Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008)).
28
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d at 205 (5th Cir. 2007)(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929(2007)).
29
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations and brackets omitted)(hereinafter
Twombly).
30
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)(internal citations
omitted)(hereinafter “Iqbal”).
31
Id. at 678.
32
Id.
DM 1155

5

will not ‘strain to find inferences favorable to the plaintiff.’”33 On a motion to dismiss,
courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.”34
B. Prescription
1. Statements made in the context of judicial proceedings
Both parties place unfounded importance on the date that Painter filed his
reconventional demand alleging defamation in Suire’s state court sexual harassment
suit. Suire asserts that Painter’s instant defamation suit is prescribed because his state
court reconventional demand for defamation was filed without leave of court, and
therefore had no effect.35

Painter counters that the filing of his state court

reconventional demand for defamation interrupted prescription for purposes of this
defamation suit because he never abandoned

or voluntarily dismissed his

reconventional demand.
It is well settled in Louisiana “that an action for defamation arising out of
allegations made in judicial proceedings and against a party to those proceedings
cannot be brought until those proceedings have terminated.”36 The purpose of this rule
is to “allow the underlying litigation to proceed in an orderly manner, without the issue of
defamation present.”37 Hence, prescription did not commence running on Painter’s
defamation claims which arise out of Suire’s state court allegations until the state court
case was dismissed on July 12, 2011. The party’s arguments regarding the tolling
33

Taha v. William Marsh Rice Univ., 2012 WL 1576099 at *2 (S.D. Tx. May 3, 2012)(quoting Southland
Sec. Corp. v. Inspire Ins. Solutions, Inc., 365 F.3d 353, 361 (5th Cir. 2004)).
34
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d
209 (1986)).
35
Rec. Doc. 12-1. The face of Murphy Painter’s Verified Reconventional Demand for Damages reflects
that it was fax-filed on July 7, 2011 and the original was filed on July 11, 2011.
36
Simpson v. Perry, 2003-0116 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/14/04), 887 So.2d 14, at 16.
37
Id.
DM 1155

6

effect, if any, of Painter’s state court reconventional demand is irrelevant to the issue of
whether allegedly defamatory statements made in Suire’s state court suit are
prescribed. The instant suit was filed on August 12, 2011.38 Allegedly defamatory
statements made in connection with Suire’s state court harassment suit, which
remained pending until its dismissal on July 12, 2011 are timely. Specifically, the Court
finds statements made in Suire’s Affidavit of Irreparable Harm filed on August 26, 2010,
allegations by Suire in her Amended Petition filed on November 3, 2010, and Suire’s
discovery responses served on November 1, 2010, are not prescribed because they
arose “out of the allegations made in the judicial proceedings,” thus, prescription did not
commence until Suire’s State Court action terminated.
2. Statements made outside the context of judicial proceedings
Painter alleges three instances of defamatory conduct occurring outside the
context of the state court suit; namely, statements made on August 4, 2010 that resulted
in an application for a search warrant on August 16, 2010; statements occurring on
unspecified dates in July of 2010 when Suire talked to the media; and, an August 6,
2010 e-mail sent from [e-mail] to several media outlets which,
although not sent by Suire, allegedly perpetuated Suire’s allegations.
“[A] Federal District Court in Louisiana must apply Louisiana’s prescriptive
periods in diversity actions.”39 “Defamation is a delictual action subject to a one-year
liberative prescription.”40

“[P]rescription commences to run from the day injury or

38

This lawsuit was originally filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on August
21, 2012.
39
Evert v. Finn, 1999 WL 397401, at *3 (E.D. La. 6/5/99)(quoting Crase v. Astroworld, Inc., 941 F.2d 265,
266 (5th Cir. 1991)).
40
Lyons v. Knight, 2010-1470 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/11/11), 65 So.3d 257, at 260.
DM 1155

7

damage is sustained.”41 “The burden of proof on the prescription issue lies with the
party asserting it, unless the plaintiff’s claim is barred on its face, in which case the
burden shifts to the plaintiff.”42 Hence, alleged defamation occurring outside the context
of Suire’s state court suit, and more than one year from the date of filing this suit is
prescribed, unless the one year prescriptive period was interrupted.
The benchmark date for purposes of prescription is August 12, 2011, the date
this suit was filed. The allegation that Suire approached the media in July of 2010
regarding her “concerns”43 is prescribed on its face. Likewise, the allegation that the
August 6, 2010 e-mail by a third person constitutes defamation (or publication of
defamatory statements) by Suire is also facially time barred.
Without citing legal authority, Painter advances the novel argument that because
his state court reconventional demand “was essentially identical to the petition at issue
herein” that his earlier state court reconvention interrupted prescription. The Court does
not reach the issue of whether Painter’s state court reconvention interrupts prescription
on what he claims are “virtually identical” claims herein because the Court finds that
Painter’s reconventional demand was improperly filed without the requisite leave of
court and, thus, cannot interrupt prescription.
Under Louisiana law, a reconventional demand44 “may be filed without leave of
court at any time up to and including the time the answer to the principal demand is
filed.”45 Thereafter, a reconventional demand may be filed ONLY with leave of court.

41

La. C.C. art. 3492.
Bailey v. Khoury, 2004-0620 (La. 1/20/05), 891 So.2d 1268, 1275.
43
Rec. Doc. 1-5, p. 5,¶ 25.
44
A type of incidental demand under state law. La. C.C.P. art. 1031.
45
La. C.C.P. art. 1033.
42

DM 1155

8

When leave is required, the reconventional demand is “considered as filed as of the
date it is presented to the clerk of court for filing if leave of court is thereafter granted.”46
The state court record reveals, and this Court takes judicial notice, that Painter
filed an Answer in both his individual and official capacity in Suire’s state court suit on
November 15, 2010.47

Thus, in order for Painter’s reconventional demand to be

deemed “filed,” leave of court was mandatory.

Leave of court was not obtained,

therefore, Painter’s reconventional demand was never filed and prescription could not
have been interrupted.
The timeliness of a defamation cause of action for an August 4, 2010,
communication by Suire that resulted in the August 16, 2010 search warrant executed
on Painter’s office poses a more complicated question, as it deals with the issue of
republication.

“[P]rescription commences to run from the day injury or damage is

sustained.”48 “[F]or prescription purposes, damages are sustained from the date the
injury is inflicted, if immediately apparent to the victim, even though the extent of the
damages may not yet be known.”49 The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal has also
found that “knowledge of the damage-causing publication by the plaintiff is required for
the commencement of the one-year prescriptive period.”50 As for republication, “each
and every publication or communication to a third person constitutes a separate cause
of action, the conduct causing the damages, i.e., the publication, cannot be said to be
continuous.”51
46

Id.
Rec. Doc. 14-2, p. 29.
48
La. C.C. art. 3492.
49
Wiggins v. Creary, 475 So.2d 780, at 781 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1985).
50
Clark v. Wilcox, 928 So.2d 104, at 112 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2005).
51
Wiggins v. Creary, 475 So.2d 780, at 781 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1985). See also, Reed v. Baton Rouge Crime
Stoppers, 2011-0618 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/11), 2011 WL 5419678.
47

DM 1155

9

Since this lawsuit was filed on August 12, 2011, the Court finds that the August 4,
2010, communication by Suire has prescribed on its face. In light of the law that each
and every publication or communication to a third person constitutes a separate cause
of action, the Court finds Painter’s defamation claim arising from the republication of
Suire’s statements in the August 16, 2010 search warrant application has not
prescribed.
The Court concludes that Painter’s allegations of defamation leading to the OIG’s
application for a search warrant and his claims of defamation arising in the context of
Suire’s state court harassment are not prescribed.
C. Defamation
1. Louisiana Law on Defamation
A federal court sitting in diversity applies substantive law of the state.52 Under
Louisiana law, “four elements are necessary to establish a defamation cause of action:
(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (2) an unprivileged
publication to a third party; (3) fault (negligence or greater) on the part of the publisher;
and (4) resulting injury.”53 “[T]o plead material facts, a petitioner alleging a cause of
action for defamation must set forth in the petition with reasonable specificity the
defamatory statements allegedly published by the defendant. It is not necessary for a
plaintiff to state verbatim the words on which he bases his cause of action, but he must
allege a state of facts or condition or things which would show fault under article
2315.”54

52

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).
Costello v. Hardy, 2003-1146 (La. 1/21/04), 864 So.2d 129, at 139; see also, Badeaux v. Southwest
Computer Bureau, Inc., 2005-0612 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So.2d 1211, at 1218.
54
Id.
53

DM 1155

10

Defamatory words are divided into two categories: those words that are
susceptible of being defamatory in meaning and those that are defamatory per se.55
“Words which expressly or implicitly accuse another of criminal conduct, or which by
their very nature tend to injure one’s personal or professional reputation, without
considering extrinsic facts or circumstances, are considered defamatory per se.”56 “The
fault requirement is generally referred to as malice, actual or implied.”57 However, when
a plaintiff pleads statements which are defamatory per se, falsity and malice are
presumed, and the burden shifts to the Defendant to rebut the adverse presumption.58
Additionally, when the plaintiff pleads publication of words that are defamatory per se,
“the element of injury may also be presumed,” but again, may be subject to rebuttal by
the defendant.59
a. Has Painter Alleged a Defamation Claim Under Louisiana Law?
The only allegations which survive the challenge of prescription are those which
arose in the context of Suire’s state court suit and the OIG search warrant application.
Painter’s allegation in this suit, that Suire’s complaints of sexual harassment “were
unsubstantiated” by the LDR’s internal investigation,60 satisfy the first element
necessary to state a defamation claim.
If the allegedly untruthful statements are deemed defamatory per se, the
elements of falsity and malice are presumed. The Court finds that the allegations made

55

Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 2002-1418 (La. 7/10/06), 935 So.2d 669, at 674-75.
Id. at 675.
57
Id, at 674.
58
Id.
59
Costello, 864 So.2d at 140. (emphasis added).
60
Rec. Doc. 1 – 5, p. 7, ¶ 42.
56

DM 1155

11

by Suire in her state court suit61 are defamatory per se because “by their very nature
tend to injure one’s personal or professional reputation.”62 The Court further notes that,
while Suire may inevitably be able to rebut the defamatory per se presumptions of falsity
and malice, this argument is not proper on a Rule 12(c) motion and is better reserved
for a motion for summary judgment.
As for the final element necessary to maintain a defamation claim, the Court finds
on the face of the pleadings that Painter satisfactorily alleged an injury. Specifically,
Painter has alleged that, as a result of Suire’s defamatory statements, he sustained
damage to his reputation and the loss of his position as ATC Commissioner. The Court
is troubled by the inconsistent positions taken by Painter in these proceedings and the
state court proceedings. In the state court Painter goes so far as to plead that Suire’s
workplace misconduct allegations were a mere pretext for the real reason he was
terminated as ATC chief, which he contends was political retribution for not issuing a
liquor license to a friend of the Governor’s office.63 Painter alleges in state court that his

61

“Throughout her employment, Petitioner was subjected to unwelcome, sexual harassment consisting
of, but not limited to, the following, in addition to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the original
Petition; 1.Constant comments by defendant Painter directed at Petitioner about her buttocks, her chest
and her body, all of a sexually explicit nature; 2.Constant comments by defendant Painter directed at
Petitioner about her clothing, all of a sexually explicit nature; 3.Proposition by defendant Painter that
Petitioner sleep with him at his house, accompany him to his hotel room; and, * * * *” 21.On each
occasion when Petitioner opposed, protested and reported defendant Painter’s conduct, defendant
Painter’s behavior escalated and intensified. Indeed, as set forth herein, defendant Painter began
repeatedly telephoning Petitioner at all hours, asking her if she was sleeping with various different men
and what that (sic) ‘why’ she was not taking his calls, stopping by, unannounced at Petitioner’s house,
becoming irate and hostile toward Petitioner when she would not answer defendant’s telephone calls
during non-working hours and threatening Petitioner that she was “his” and she had to do what he said,
when he said it.” Rec. Doc. 11, p. 4, ¶48.
62
Costello, 864 So.2d 129, at 14o. See also, Steed v. St. Paul’s United Methodist Church, Nos. 31,521,
31,522 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/24/99), 728 So.2d 931, 940-41.
63
In their memoranda, the parties discussed the holding of the unpublished decision of Painter v. State of
Louisiana, et al., 2012 CW 0224R (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/13/13). The Court, while very troubled by the fact
that Painter has alleged in this separate state court action that he was terminated from the ATC because
he refused a request made on behalf of the Governor to issue a liquor license to a business favored by
the administration, is limited to the face of the pleadings in this matter in determining whether there is a
viable cause of action under Rule 12(c).
DM 1155

12

allegations of injury may well be rebuttable, but given his pleading of ‘damage to
reputation’, he sufficiently pleads the fourth element of a defamation claim and therefore
survives this pleading stage inquiry under Rule 12(c). Accordingly, the Court finds that
on the face of the pleadings, Painter has alleged a cause of action against Suire for
defamation.
2. Louisiana’s Special Motion to Strike
Article 971 of the Louisiana Civil Code of Procedure provides a method for
weeding out and dismissing meritless “claims pursued to chill one’s constitutional rights
under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to freedom of speech and
press.”64 This procedure is more commonly referred to as Louisiana’s special motion to
strike. Such motions “may be filed within ninety days of service of the petition, or in the
court’s discretion, at any time later upon terms the court deems proper.”65

Suire was

served with Painter’s lawsuit on July 24, 2012;66 however, Suire did not file her motion
to strike until June 20, 2013, well-beyond the permissible 90 days. The Court further
declines exercising its own discretion to consider Suire’s untimely motion at this
juncture. Accordingly, Suire’s Special Motion to Strike is denied.

64

Henry v. Lake Charles American Press, L.L.C., 566 F.3d 164, 169 (5th Cir. 2009)(quoting Lee v.
Pennington, 830 So.2d 1037, 1041 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2002), writ denied, 836 So.2d 52 (La. 2003)).
65
La. C.C.P. art. 971(C)(1).
66
Rec. Doc. 1, ¶1.
DM 1155

13

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby denies Defendant Kelli Suire’s

Motions to Dismiss and Special Motions to Strike.67
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 18, 2014.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

67

Rec. Doc. 9 and Rec. Doc. 13.

DM 1155

14