National Linen Service v. City of Monroe12/15/2004
Defendant, the City of Monroe, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying both its declinatory exception of improper venue and its alternative motion to transfer the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. For the reasons expressed below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Facts
On July 8, 2002, plaintiff, National Linen Service ("National Linen"), entered into a five-year contract with the Monroe Civic Center through its Director of Operations, Roger Cloman, to provide the civic center with linens on a rental basis and to be responsible for the laundering of those linens for the duration of the contract. In September 2003, the civic center informed National Linen that it had entered into a new contract with another vendor and was terminating its contract with National Linen. On November 18, 2003, National Linen forwarded correspondence to the Monroe Civic Center requesting that it reconsider its decision, and, in the alternative, making demand for liquidated damages as a result of the civic center's breach of contract. A similar request was issued by National Linen's attorney on November 25, 2003, via certified mail.
Thereafter, on February 9, 2004, National Linen filed suit in the 1st Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, against the City of Monroe for damages incurred as a result of the civic center's breach of the five-year contract approximately four years before the expiration of the contractual term. In its petition, National Linen alleged, inter alia, that the laundering of the linens provided for in the contract took place exclusively at National Linen's laundering facilities in Shreveport. On March 8, 2004, the city filed a declinatory exception of improper venue and a motion to transfer the case to Ouachita Parish under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The motions were heard on April 5, 2004. After hearing oral argument from both parties, the trial court denied both the exception of improper venue and the motion to transfer. It is from this judgment that the city has appealed.
Discussion
La. R.S. 13:5104(B) provides:
All suits against a political subdivision of the state or against an officer or employee of a political subdivision for conduct arising out of the discharge of his official duties or within the course and scope of his employment shall be instituted before the district court of the judicial district in which the political subdivision is located or in the district court having jurisdiction in the parish in which the cause of action arises.
The venue provisions of La. R.S. 13:5104(B), which apply to suits against political subdivisions of the state, are mandatory. UDS Management Corp. v. Ebarb Waterworks District No. 1, 32,103 (La. App. 2d Cir. 02/24/99), 728 So. 2d 952, writ denied, 99-1175 (La. 06/04/99), 744 So. 2d 630; Brian L. Heard General Contractor, Inc. v. Ward Two Water District of Livingston Parish, 97-0653 (La. App. 1st Cir. 04/08/98), 708 So. 2d 843.
As held by the supreme court in Underwood v. Lane Memorial Hospital, 97-1997 (La. 07/08/98), 714 So. 2d 715, 718, the use of the word "shall" in La. R.S. 13:5104(B) indicates a legislative intent that a single political subdivision can be sued only in one of the two specified parishes and no other exceptions [to the statutory venue provisions] are applicable.
See also White v. Beauregard Memorial Hospital, 02-0902 (La. 06/14/02), 821 So. 2d 481; Risener v. Hospital Service District No. One of the Parish of Terrebonne, 01-2755 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/08/02), 834 So. 2d 480, writ denied, 03-0142 (La. 03/21/03), 840 So. 2d 536.
The defendant in this breach
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|