CamSoft Data Sys., Inc. v. S. Elecs. Supply, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2019 CA 0737,2019 CW 0496 |
| Parties | CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. v. SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC. AND ACTIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
The Honorable Janice Clark, Judge Presiding
Karli Glascock Johnson
Vance A. Gibbs
Tara M. Madison
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
and
James C. Grant
Christopher A. Riley
Elizabeth Helmer
Michael P. Kenny
Atlanta, Georgia
Counsel for Defendants/Appellants
Dell, Inc. & Dell Marketing, L.P.
Jason L. Melancon
Robert C. Rimes
R. Lee Daquanno, Jr.
Frank Tomeny, III
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
and
Marx D. Sterbcow
New Orleans, Louisiana
and
Mark D. Plaisance
Marcus J. Plaisance
Prairieville, Louisiana
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
CamSoft Data Systems, Inc.
Michael T. Beckers
Brent P. Frederick
Danielle N. Goren
Tiffany T. Kopfinger
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
MMR Constructors, Inc., MMR Group,
Inc. & MMR Offshore Services, Inc.
Gus A. Fritchie, III
New Orleans, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Continental Casualty Company
Christine Lipsey
Amanda Stout
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
and
Mark J. Chaney
New Orleans, Louisiana
and
Christopher H. Toll
Pro Hac Vice
Greenwood Village, Colorado
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Ciber, Inc.
BEFORE: CRAIN, THERIOT, and HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
In this appeal, Dell, Inc. and Dell Marketing, L.P. (sometimes referred to collectively as "Dell") seek review of the trial court's judgment denying their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on CamSoft's Tort Claims. For the following reasons, we affirm the portion of the trial court's judgment that denied Dell's motion as it relates to CamSoft Data Systems, Inc.'s ("CamSoft") claim for conspiracy to commit fraud and dismiss the remainder of Dell's appeal as moot. We deny the companion writ application, referred to this panel, as moot.
The facts and procedural history are laid out in more detail in this court's opinion in CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, Inc., 2019-0730 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/2/19) (unpublished), which is also being issued this date.
Relevant hereto, CamSoft filed a Master Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Supplemental Relief, Damages, and Attorney's Fees, asserting the following tort causes of action against Dell: (1) conspiracy to commit fraud, (2) conspiracy to tortiously interfere with contract, and (3) conspiracy to convert business information.
In response, Dell filed a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims on. After a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment on April 2, 2019, denying Dell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on CamSoft's Tort Claims. From this judgment, Dell appeals pursuant to La. R.S. 51:135.1
A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. M/V Resources LLC v. Louisiana Hardwood Products LLC, 2016-0758, p. 8 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/26/17), 225 So.3d 1104, 1109, writ denied, 2017-1748 (La. 12/5/17), 231 So.3d 624. A motion for summary judgment is properly granted if, after an opportunity for adequate discovery, the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A)(3). The burden of proof rests with the mover. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(D)(1). Nevertheless, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. The burden is on the adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts review evidence de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. M/V Resources LLC, 2016-0758 at p. 9, 225 So.3d at 1109.
A fact is material if it potentially ensures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant's ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute. A genuine issue of material fact is one to which reasonable persons could disagree. If reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate. Doyle v. LonesomeDevelopment, Limited Liability Company, 2017-0787, p. 6 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/18/18), 254 So.3d 714, 718-19, writ denied, 2018-1369 (La. 11/14/18), 256 So.3d 291, quoting Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 2012-2742, pp. 5-6 (La. 1/28/14), 144 So.3d 876, 882, cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 197, 190 L.Ed.2d 130 (2014). Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality, whether a particular fact in dispute is material can be seen only in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. Succession of Hickman v. State Through Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2016-1069, p. 5 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 217 So.3d 1240, 1244.
Although summary judgments are now favored, factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor. See Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. Energy Development Corporation, 2016-0171, p. 14 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 218 So.3d 1045, 1059.
Pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code art. 1953, The elements of the tort of fraud are a misrepresentation of material fact made with the intent to deceive where there was reasonable and justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and resulting injury. Riedel v. Fenasci, 2018-0539, p. 9 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/18), 270 So.3d 795, citing Prejean v. Estate of Monteiro, 2015-0197, p. 6 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/18/15), 2015 WL 5515763, at *3 (unpublished).
Fraud need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and may be established by circumstantial evidence. Boudreaux v. Jeff, 2003-1932, p. 9 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/17/04), 884 So.2d 665, 671-72, citing La. Civ. Code art. 1957; McDonough Marine Service, a Div. of Marmac Corp. v. Doucet, 95-2087, p. 6 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/28/96), 694 So.2d 305, 309. Circumstantial evidence, including highly suspicious facts and circumstances surrounding a transaction, may be considered in determining whether a fraud has been committed. Terrebonne Concrete, LLC v. CEC Enterprises, LLC, 2011-0072, p. 11 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/17/11), 76 So.3d 502, 510, writ denied, 2011-2021 (La. 11/18/11), 75 So.3d 464, citing Williamson v. Haynes Best Western of Alexandria, 95-1725, p. 85 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1/29/97), 688 So.2d 1201, 1239, writ denied, 97-1145 (La. 6/20/97), 695 So.2d 1355.
Louisiana Civil Code article 2324(A) provides that "[h]e who conspires with another person to commit an intentional or willful act is answerable, in solido, with that person, for the damage caused by such act." The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that conspiracy by itself is not an actionable claim under Louisiana law. The actionable element of a conspiracy claim is not the conspiracy itself but rather the tort that the conspirators agree to perpetrate and actually commit in whole or in part. Quality Environmental Processes, Inc. v. IP Petroleum Company, Inc., 2016-0230, p. 16 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 219 So.3d 349, 370, writ denied, 2017-00915 (La. 10/9/17), 227 So.3d 833, citing Ross v. Conoco, Inc., 2002-0299, pp. 7-8 (La. 10/15/02), 828 So.2d 546, 552.
To establish a conspiracy, a plaintiff is required to provide evidence of the requisite agreement between the parties; that is, a meeting of the minds or collusion between the parties for the purpose of committing wrongdoing. Quality Environmental Processes, 2016-0230 at p. 16, 219 So.3d at 370, citing Prime Ins. Co. v. Imperial Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 2014-0323, p. 9 (La. App. 4th Cir.10/1/14), 151 So.3d 670, 677, writ denied, 2014-2241 (La. 1/9/15), 157 So.3d 1110. Evidence of a conspiracy can be actual knowledge of both parties or overt actions with another; a conspiracy may also be inferred from the knowledge of the alleged co-conspirator of the impropriety of the actions taken by the other co-conspirator. Boudreaux, 2003-1932 at p. 11, 884 So.2d at 672-73, citing Stephens v. Bail Enforcement of Louisiana, 96-0809, p. 10 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/14/97), 690 So.2d 124, 131, writ denied, 97-0585 (La. 4/18/97), 692 So.2d 454.
In Louisiana, if a conspiracy to do an unlawful act is entered into by two or more persons, and one of them does an act in furtherance thereof all of the conspirators may be held civilly liable for damages to a third party resulting therefrom. Economy Carpets Manufacturers and Distributors, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Baton Rouge, Inc., 333 So.2d 765, 768 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 334 So.2d 428 (La. 1976). When a tort is perpetrated through the instrumentality of a combination or conspiracy, the party wronged or injured may look beyond the actual participants in committing the injury and join with them, as defendants, all who cooperated in, advised, or assisted in the accomplishment of the common design. Strahan v. State Through Department of Agriculture and Forestry,...
To continue reading
Request your trial