Opinion ID: 1577217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standing to Assert a LUTPA Claim :

Text: As previously mentioned, the threshold legal issue in this case is whether plaintiffs have standing to bring a claim for damages pursuant to LUTPA. Noting that plaintiffs are neither business competitors of Shell nor consumers, facts that plaintiffs concede, Shell has urged a lack of standing. The issue is one of first impression with this court. Although we have denied writs as early as 1982 in cases [3] that have rendered contradictory holdings, we have never addressed the conflict. At issue is an evaluation of LSA-R.S. 51:1401, et seq., Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law enacted in 1972 as part of Title 51 entitled Trade and Commerce. [4] We begin as we must with the words of the statute. Grant v. Grace, 03-2021, p. 4 (La.4/14/04), 870 So.2d 1011, 1014. The legislation specifies that [u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. LSA-R.S. 51:1405(A). Entitled Private actions, LSA-R.S. 51:1409 provides, in pertinent part: A. Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or movable property, corporeal or incorporeal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice declared unlawful by R.S. 51:1405, may bring an action individually but not in a representative capacity to recover actual damages. If the court finds the unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice was knowingly used, after being put on notice by the attorney general, the court shall award three times the actual damages sustained. In the event that damages are awarded under this Section, the court shall award to the person bringing such action reasonable attorney fees and costs. Upon a finding by the court that an action under this Section was groundless and brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court may award to the defendant reasonable attorney fees and costs. The definition portion of LUTPA is found in LSA-R.S. 51:1402 which provides, in pertinent part: (1) Consumer means any person who uses, purchases, or leases goods or services. .... (3) Consumer transaction means any transaction involving trade or commerce to a natural person, the subject of which transaction is primarily intended for personal, family, or household use. .... (8) Person means a natural person, corporation, trust, partnership, incorporated or unincorporated association, and any other legal entity. (9) Trade or commerce means the advertising, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any services and any property, corporeal or incorporeal, immovable or movable, and any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated, and includes any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of the state. An examination of these sections of LUTPA reveals that the legislation contains no language that would clearly and expressly bar a person (such as the individual and the corporation that are the plaintiffs herein) from bringing an action for unfair trade practices. To the contrary, LUTPA grants a right of action to any person, natural or juridical, who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of another person's use of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Although business consumers and competitors are included in the group afforded this private right of action, they are not its exclusive members. As noted in Capitol House Preservation Company, L.L.C. v. Perryman Consultants, Inc., 98-1514, pp. 12-13 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/10/98), 725 So.2d 523, 530, Louisiana courts have repeatedly held that there is no such limitation in LUTPA. [5] An evaluation of the words of this statute leads to the conclusion that, consistent with the definition and usage of the word person, there is no such limitation on those who may assert a LUTPA cause of action. Any such limitation that has found its way into the jurisprudence resulted without proper analysis of the statute. See Gil v. Metal Service Corp., [6] 412 So.2d 706, (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 414 So.2d 379 (La.1982). In Hamilton v. Business Partners, Inc., 938 F.Supp. 370 (E.D.La.1996), the Court discussed contrary holdings in cases, both state and federal, that have held relief under LUTPA is limited to business competitors and consumers. Despite an acknowledgment in Hamilton that the seminal Louisiana case upon which subsequent jurisprudence relied could well be flawed, the limitation has been perpetuated in both state appellate courts and the federal courts interpreting Louisiana law. [7] Based on the language of the statute, which does not contain a clear, unequivocal and affirmative expression that the private right of action provided in LSA-R.S. 51:1409(A) extends only to business competitors and consumers, LUTPA does not exclude other persons who assert a loss of money or ... property ... as a result of the use or employment by another person of an unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice. Contrary holdings are hereby repudiated, because any limitation must be contained in the language of the statute. We note the legislature, in enacting LUTPA in 1972, has provided certain limiting features. Although a plaintiff who obtains a judgment for damages pursuant to LSA-R.S. 51:1409(A) is entitled to an award for attorney fees and costs, LSA-R.S. 51:1409(A) also provides that if the plaintiff is unsuccessful and the court finds that the action was groundless and brought in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the defendant may be awarded attorney fees and costs. Further, the treble damages that a plaintiff may be entitled to are conditioned on a finding by the court of an unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice [that] was knowingly used, after being put on notice by the attorney general. LSA-R.S. 51:1409(A); see Faris v. Model's Guild, 297 So.2d 536 (La.App. 4 Cir.1974), writ denied, 302 So.2d 15 (Plaintiff could not recover treble damages where defendant company was never placed on notice of any act, conduct or practice prohibited by statute or by any rule or regulation made by the State.). Although LUTPA is available to plaintiffs other than business competitors and consumers, a plaintiff's burden of proving an unfair or deceptive method, act, or practice on the part of a defendant is not lessened by this opinion.