## Facts

- 2400 Canal, L.L.C. owned immovable property at 2400 Canal Street in New Orleans.
- In March 2010, the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College filed an expropriation petition, asserting a public and necessary purpose tied to construction of a Veterans Affairs Medical Center under a cooperative arrangement among governmental entities.
- Before the expropriation was resolved, the Board, the State, and the VA executed a February 17, 2010 “Right of Possession, Use, and Occupancy Agreement” granting the VA possession, occupancy, and use of the property for the medical center project.
- In September 2011, the expropriation action was settled by a confidential compromise agreement placed on the record, in which 2400 Canal broadly and permanently released the Board from any claims arising out of, associated with, or connected to the expropriation matter, including claims that could have been asserted.
- In November 2011, 2400 Canal filed a new suit against the Board and its president seeking mandamus, declaratory relief, and damages, primarily to nullify the use agreement as an unconstitutional “lease” and to compel an offer-back of the property at current fair market value.
- 2400 Canal relied on La. Const. art. I, § 4(H)(1), contending the use agreement triggered a former-owner right to be offered the property before it was “disposed of” to another entity.
- The trial court sustained defendants’ exceptions and dismissed the action, reasoning that the compromise agreement barred the claims.

## Issues

1. Whether La. Const. art. I, § 4(H)(1) provides a former owner a cause of action to challenge a governmental use/occupancy arrangement for an expropriated property devoted to a VA medical center project.
2. Whether the prior compromise agreement’s broad release bars the former owner’s later claims seeking nullification, an offer-back remedy, and damages related to the same property and project.

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed dismissal of 2400 Canal’s suit.
- On its own motion, the court held that 2400 Canal lacked a cause of action under La. Const. art. I, § 4(H)(1) for the relief sought.
- The court treated the property’s use for construction of a VA medical center as a public-use project under public control, not the type of private-benefit disposition targeted by the 2006 constitutional amendment.
- The court also recognized the breadth of the expropriation compromise and release as barring later litigation over claims connected to the expropriation and related transactions.

## Legal Principles

- A petition may be dismissed for no cause of action when the law invoked does not afford the plaintiff the asserted remedy on the alleged facts.
- La. Const. art. I, § 4(H)(1) does not necessarily provide a private remedial right to a former owner to invalidate post-taking arrangements when the property remains devoted to a public facility under public ownership/control rather than being disposed of for predominant private use.
- A compromise agreement is enforceable as a contract and can have res judicata-like preclusive effect; a broad release of “any and all” claims connected with the expropriation bars later suits seeking additional relief tied to the same property and project.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the former owner had no cause of action under La. Const. art. I, § 4(H)(1) to attack the VA use/occupancy agreement or demand an offer-back remedy, and the earlier expropriation compromise broadly released claims connected to the taking and related arrangements.


2400 Canal, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll., 105 So. 3d 819 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012)