THINKSTREAM, INC. VS TEMPLAR, INC.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2005 CA 1968 THINKSTREAM INC VS TEMPLAR INC JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 28 2006 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER 521 438 DIVISION M PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE KAY BATES JUDGE RICHMOND C ODOM COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS APPELLANTS BATON ROUGE LA THINKSTREAM INC AND BRENT D BURLEY BARRY L BELLUE SR GONZALES LA MICHAEL H RUBIN COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE mSTON M O BRIEN EMILYB THE TEMPLAR CORPORATION GREY BATON ROUGE LA BEFORE f CARTER J C WHIPPLE AND MCDONALD n MCDONALD J Thinkstream Inc and Templar Inc each submitted Integrated Criminal Justice System Policy Board for contract After Thinkstream Louisiana Commission chosen was Law Enforcement This protest on an with the Commissioner Administration which found in favor of appeal the contract to Thinkstream Thinkstream proceedings against upon Templar s intentional and and rejected of the Division Thinkstream filed suit successful and of institution negligent against of the bid award appeal negligent misrepresentations Thinkstream and intentional and was to the Templar and vacated the award of Thereafter intentional alleged consulting services Templar protested the award Templar filed Templar based a to the proposals made of legal by Templar negligent interference with contract and business relations Templar filed peremptory exceptions cause not or of action and non support for an joinder of a party action for intentional and negligent institution of Louisiana law did not legal proceedings Thinkstream had failed a cause negligent interference with of action for that would be Templar with Thinkstream two motions it to retain new negligent institution of and that contract a to an amended defamed Thinkstream and violated the court Templar amend its pleadings within dismissed contract also asserted that Thinkstream filed Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act The trial and ordered that no join the Policy Board and the Commissioner of the Division of Administration in the suit petition asserting Templar negligent interference with to objections of asserting that the facts alleged did legal proceedings recognize or raIsmg the prejudice The trial granted 15 days court the or exceptions the petition then granted stay the proceedings each for 60 days to allow counsel and file a supplemental 2 and amending petition Templar Thereafter filed comply with the prior a motion to a motion for amended Thinkstream numerous a so with prejudice or compliance was judgment asserting thorough review thus we Thus to find we we amend the no enor denied by s judgment be the trial comi that the dismissal should find that petition cast court with Thinkstream to state by the trial affirm the trial with prejudice and Thinkstream is in which to Thinkstream prejudice in the alternative that the prejudice for failure granted Templar court claims with s prejudice prejudice opportunities failed to do trial that appealed have been without After new dismiss without to The trial court orders motion and dismissed Thinkstream filed dismiss with court a cause in was of action and dismissing the suit judgment dismissing costs This opinion AFFIRMED 3 the suit is rendered with Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 2 A 8 glVen 7 and
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
