The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
J. CORY CORDOVA CASE NO. 6:19-CV-1027
VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
LSU AGRICULTURAL & MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA
MECHANICAL COLLEGE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL.
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the court is a Motion to Dismiss [docs. 8, 20] filed by defendants Christopher
C. Johnston and the Gachassin Law Firm (collectively, “Gachassin defendants”) under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff J. Cory Cordova opposes the motion.
Doc. 26.
I.
BACKGROUND
This suit arises from the termination of plaintiff from his Internal Medicine
residency/“house officer” program at the University Hospital and Clinics (“UHC”) at
Lafayette General Hospital in Lafayette, Louisiana. The house officer program at UHC is
operated under contract with Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical
College (“LSU”). See doc. 1, att. 2, pp. 2–16 (original complaint); id. at 183–97 (amended
complaint). Cordova filed suit in the 15th Judicial District Court, Lafayette Parish,
Louisiana, on March 29, 2019, against the LSU Board of Supervisors1, UHC Internal
Medicine program director Dr. Karen Curry, UHC Medicine Department Head/Section
Chief Dr. Nicholas Sells, and LSU Director of Graduate Medical Education Kristi
Anderson (collectively, “LSU defendants”). Id. He also named as defendants the Gachassin
Law Firm and attorney Christopher C. Johnston, alleging that Johnston had represented
him during disciplinary proceedings without disclosing that he had a conflict of interest
relating to prior representation of Lafayette General Medical Center, Dr. Sells, and
academic dean Dr. James Falterman. With respect to the Gachassin defendants, Cordova
raised claims of legal malpractice and disgorgement of legal fees for conflict of interest.
Id. at 195–96. In his prayer for relief he asks for “all costs, [and] expenses of these
proceedings, and attorney’s fees . . . .” Id. at 197.
The LSU defendants, against whom Cordova has raised claims for constitutional
violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, removed the case to this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
& 1343. Doc. 1. The Gachassin defendants now move to dismiss Cordova’s claim for
attorney fees. Cordova opposes the motion.
1 The LSU Board of Supervisors was named as the “Louisiana State University Health Science Center” in the original
complaint. Doc. 1, att. 2, p. 2. The name was corrected in the amended complaint, filed in the state district court on
July 22, 2019. Id. at 183.
II.
LAW & APPLICATION
A. Rule 12(b)(6)
Rule 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal of a claim when a plaintiff “fail[s] to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” When reviewing such a motion, the court should focus
on the complaint and its attachments. Wilson v. Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir.
2012). The court can also consider matters of which it may take judicial notice, including
matters of public record. Hall v. Hodgkins, 305 Fed. App’x 224, 227 (5th Cir. 2008)
(unpublished) (citing Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017–18 (5th Cir.
1996) and Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n. 9 (5th Cir. 2007)).
Such motions are also reviewed with the court “accepting all well-pleaded facts as
true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Bustos v. Martini
Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010). However, “the plaintiff must plead enough
facts ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” In re Katrina Canal Breaches
Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). Accordingly, the court’s task is not to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood
of success, but instead to determine whether the claim is both legally cognizable and
plausible. Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th
Cir. 2010).
B. Application
Under Louisiana law attorney fees may generally only be recovered in a civil action
under a statutory or contractual provision. E.g., F.D.I.C. v. Barton, 233 F.3d 859, 865 (5th
Cir. 2000). Louisiana courts have repeatedly recognized that a plaintiff in a malpractice
case “may be entitled to attorney’s fees associated with the underlying action which the
defendant attorney negligently handled but not for attorney’s fees associated with
prosecuting the malpractice claim.” Sherwin-Williams Co. v. First La. Const., Inc., 915
So.2d 841, 848 (La. Ct. App. Ist Cir. 2005) (citing Henderson v. Domingue, 626 So.2d
555, 559-60 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993)). Accordingly, Cordova may be entitled to
compensation for money he has expended on attorneys to continue pursuing his claims
against the LSU defendants. He is not, however, entitled to attorney fees incurred in
prosecuting his tort claims against the Gachassin defendants. To the extent this is the relief
sought in his claim for attorney fees, he fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 24" day of October, 2019.
F246
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-A-