Antin-Quealy, Inc. v. WTA Marine, Inc.
1999 La. LEXIS 1604, 1999 WL 373844, 735 So.2d 623 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 76.1, when a contract is executed by parties in different parishes, venue for a suit on that contract is proper in any of the parishes where it was executed.
Facts:
- Antin-Quealy, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation with its domicile in Tangipahoa Parish.
- WTA Marine, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation with its domicile in Lafourche Parish.
- The two corporations negotiated two contracts via mail, phone, and fax.
- Antin-Quealy, Inc. executed the contracts in Tangipahoa Parish.
- WTA Marine, Inc. executed the same contracts in Lafourche Parish.
- A dispute subsequently arose between the parties regarding the contracts.
Procedural Posture:
- Antin-Quealy, Inc. filed suit against WTA Marine, Inc. in the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Tangipahoa (trial court).
- WTA Marine, Inc. filed an exception of improper venue, seeking to have the case moved.
- The trial court granted the exception and ordered the case transferred to Lafourche Parish.
- Antin-Quealy, Inc. applied for supervisory writs from the intermediate court of appeal.
- The court of appeal denied the writ application, finding the trial court's ruling to be correct.
- Antin-Quealy, Inc. then applied for a writ to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 76.1, is venue for a suit on a contract proper in a parish where the plaintiff executed the contract, even though the defendant executed it in a different parish?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. When a contract is executed in more than one parish, any of those parishes is a proper venue for a lawsuit arising from the contract. The court's reasoning relied on its prior decision in Jordan v. Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc., which interpreted La. Code Civ. P. art. 76.1 to authorize venue in any parish where the contract was executed. Since it is undisputed that Antin-Quealy executed the contract in Tangipahoa Parish, that parish is a proper venue for the suit. The court further noted that because Tangipahoa Parish is the plaintiff's domicile, the case cannot be transferred on the grounds of forum non conveniens pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 123 A.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the principle that venue for contract disputes is not limited to a single location when execution occurs in multiple jurisdictions. It provides plaintiffs with flexibility, allowing them to file suit in their home parish if that is where they signed the contract, even if negotiations and the defendant's execution occurred elsewhere. This interpretation acknowledges modern business practices where parties are not physically present for execution and can give a strategic advantage to the party able to litigate on their home turf.
