Haygood et al v. Begue et al

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM RULING re 38 MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Strike MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Brian Begue. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 03/31/2014. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
RYAN HAYGOOD, DDS and
HAYGOOD DENTAL CARE, LLC

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-0335

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

BRIAN BEGUE, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM RULING

Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Record Document 38) filed by Defendant
Brian Begue under Rule 12(b)(6) and Special Motion to Strike under La. C.C.P. art. 971,
and in the alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement under Rule 12(e). See Record
Document 38. For the reasons which follow, the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is
GRANTED. The Special Motion to Strike is MOOT.
BACKGROUND
The allegations in the instant suit relate to formal complaints by patients and other
dentists to the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (“Dental Board”) about Dr. Ryan
Haygood. The complaints stated that Dr. Haygood recommended extensive and expensive
treatment plans after over-diagnosing/unnecessarily diagnosing patients with peridontal
disease. A three-year review process ensued, which included an investigation, and
ultimately an administrative proceedings wherein Dr. Ryan Haygood’s dental license was
revoked by the Dental Board.
On November 8, 2010, at the conclusion of four days of adversarial hearings, which
included the presentation of witnesses, experts and medical / dental evidence, a threemember disciplinary panel revoked Dr. Haygood’s dental license, and levied fines against
him. This punishment was imposed due to Dr. Haygood’s violations of the Dental Practice

Act. Louisiana Revised Statute Section 37:751 et seq.
Brian Begue, an attorney, served as general counsel for the Dental Board and was
appointed to act as independent counsel for the Disciplinary Committee pursuant to La.
Admin. Code Title 46, Part. XXXIII, § 923 (D), throughout the hearing process. Record
Document 71-2 at ¶ 3, 69-71.
Dr. Haygood appealed the November 8, 2010 decision of the Dental Board to the
Civil District Court of Orleans Parish (“CDC”) Docket No. 2010-12060. On May 31, 2011,
the CDC affirmed some of the findings, but remanded part of the case the to Dental Board
due to the erroneous inclusion of charges against Dr. Haygood that were previously
dismissed. In all other respects, the CDC affirmed the Dental Board’s decision. Dr.
Haygood appealed the portion of the May 31, 2011 decision of the CDC which was affirmed
to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, Docket No. 2011-CA-1327.
On August 29, 2011, the Dental Board issued a decision regarding the remanded
portion of the suit. It again levied fines against Dr. Haygood and affirmed the revocation of
his dental license in its Amended Decision After Remand. This decision was also appealed
by Dr. Haygood to the CDC, which affirmed the ruling on December 9, 2011. The two
decisions by the CDC (May 31, 2011 and August 29, 2011) were consolidated on appeal
to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded
the Dental Board’s ruling, finding that the Dental Board’s independent counsel participated
in the administrative hearing in dual roles as prosecutor and adjudicator in violation of Dr.
Haygood’s due process rights.
Plaintiffs, Ryan Haygood, DDS and his dental limited liability company (hereafter
referred to as Dr. Haygood or Plaintiffs), brought the instant lawsuit against Begue, among
2

other defendants, on February 13, 2013, alleging damages arising out of violations of 42
U.S.C. 1983, and 15 U.S.C. § 1 and § 2, as well as Louisiana state law claims for
defamation and for violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”)- LSAR.S. 51:1409 et seq. (Record Document 71-2). The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim and dismissal due to untimeliness in regards to violations of 42
U.S.C. § 1983, antitrust violations, defamation, and violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal of an action “for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” While a complaint attacked by a Rule
12(b)(6) motion does not need detailed factual allegations, in order to avoid dismissal, the
plaintiff’s factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007);
see also Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007). A plaintiff’s obligation
“requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do.” Id. The Supreme Court recently expounded on the Twombly
standard, explaining that a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, – U.S. –, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court must construe the complaint
3

liberally and accept all of the plaintiff’s factual allegations in the complaint as true. See In
re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2009).
Although courts generally are not permitted to review materials outside of the
pleadings when determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim for which relief may be
granted, there are limited exceptions to this rule. Specifically, a court may consider
documents attached to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to be part of the pleadings if the
plaintiff refers to those documents and they are central to the claim. See Collins v. Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-499 (5th Cir. 2000); Causey v. Sewell CadillacChevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004). Additionally, pleadings filed in state or
other federal district courts are matters of public record and the Court may take judicial
notice of those documents in connection with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Cinel
v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir. 1994).
B. Legal Analysis
Immunity
Begue asserts that he is entitled to absolutely immunity for all claims related to his
role as independent counsel for the Dental Board, particularly those related to his role
during the Dental Board’s administrative hearing involving Dr. Haygood.
Louisiana Revised Statute 37:370 provides that the Dental Board holds the power
to regulate the practice of dentistry within the state. The Dental Board’s powers include the
authority to investigate illegal practices, conduct disciplinary hearings, impose fines, and
revoke licenses. Disciplinary hearings are held pursuant to the Louisiana Administrative
Code, Title 46, Part XXXIII, § 923, which expressly provides the Board’s Disciplinary
Hearing Committee the power to delegate to an independent counsel the right to rule on
4

evidentiary and procedural issues. Specifically, Section 923(D) provides:
During and before an adjudication hearing, the chairman shall rule upon all
evidentiary objections and other procedural questions, but in his discretion
may consult with the entire hearing panel in executive session. At any such
time, the hearing panel may be assisted by legal consel, retained by the
board for such purpose, who is independent of complaint counsel and who
has not participated in the investigation or prosecution of the case. If the
board or hearing panel is attended by such counsel, the chairman may
delegate to such counsel ruling on evidentiary objections and other
procedural issues raised during the hearing.
Absolute prosecutorial immunity has been extended to agency officials in
administrative adjudicative proceedings. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 2894
(1978). The Fifth Circuit has further held that absolute immunity is extended to members
of administrative boards serving in quasi-prosecutorial and quasi-judicial roles. See Di
Ruzzo v. Tabaracci, 480 F.App’x 796,797 (5th Cir. 2012)(absolute immunity extended to
counsel and members of the Texas Medical Board who were performing quasiprosecutorial and quasi-judicial functions); See also Austin Municipal Securities, Inc. v.
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 757 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1985)(absolute
immunity extended to the association, its disciplinary officers, and its staff members to
extent they acted as prosecutors within the outer scope of their duties). Further, absolute
immunity applies to those fulfilling these roles, even if the decisions are flawed by the
commission of grave procedural error. Id. “Absolute immunity denies a person whose
federal rights have been violated by a government official any type of remedy, regardless
of conduct.” Di Ruzzo at 797 (citing O’Neal v. Miss. Bd. Of Nursing, 113 F.3d 62,65 (5th
Cir. 1997)). Further, the party asserting absolute immunity bears the burden of proof to
establish it. Id.
Here, the amended complaint claims that Begue was serving as independent
5

counsel, a quasi-judicial role, pursuant to the authority delegated to him by the Chairman
of the Dental Board, as permitted under Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 46, Part
XXXIII, § 923(D). Record Document 71-2, ¶ 69-70. The complaint further alleges that while
Begue served in this role, he improperly combined his role as an independent counsel with
that of a prosecutor. Record Document 71-2, ¶ 74. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit in its
decision to reverse and remand the CDC’s decision held that “...the Board improperly
combined the prosecutorial and judicial functions by allowing its general counsel, Mr. Brian
Begue, to serve as the prosecutor, general counsel, panel member, and adjudicator for the
proceedings against Dr. Haygood.” Id.
Plaintiffs contend that “completely disregarded his statutory limits and knowingly
interjected himself into the proceedings far beyond the authority allotted to him under
Louisiana law.” Record Document 65, p. 15. However, the court gives no credence to this
argument. Rather, the Court finds that Begue’s actions occurred in direct relation to his
quasi-judicial role as counsel for the Dental Board. While Begue’s decision to crossexamine Dr. Haygood and other witnesses during the administrative hearing may have
been deemed improper, his conduct nonetheless falls within the limits of his role as a quasijudicial official. Therefore, Begue is entitled to absolute immunity under the precedent
established by Butz, Di Ruzzo and Austin Municipal Securities, Inc., supra.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons provided above, absolute immunity applies to defendant Brian
Begue who served as counsel to the Dental Board throughout the administrative hearing
and process involving Dr. Haygood. Therefore, Begue is entitled to dismissal of the all
claims filed by the Plaintiffs against him. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (Record
6

Document 38) is hereby GRANTED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 31st day
of March, 2014.

7