So.2d 302, 305 (La.2001); Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir.2008) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965-68, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Thus, Plaintiffs have established enough facts to support a claim for negligence. B. Misrepresentation Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2315 and 2316 provide for the protection of individuals damaged by the negligent acts of others and “[e]neompass causes of action for negligent misrepresentation.” Barrie, 625 So.2d at 1014; La. C.C. Art. 2315-2316. In determining “whether to impose liability [for negligent misrepresentation]”, Louisiana employs the duty-risk analysis standard. Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, 923 So.2d 627, 633 (La.2006); see also Barrie v. V.P. Exterminators, 625 So.2d 1007, 1015 (La.1993) (<HOLDING>). Under this standard, a plaintiff must prove
holding that the same hearing officer as in this case erred in substituting his judgment for that of the pertinent school board in that case recognizing contribution in the appropriate case holding that the law of the case doctrine is not a fixed rule that prevents a federal court from determining the question of its own subject matter jurisdiction in a given case holding that under the facts of that case the action primarily involved a custody dispute and therefore that the trial court erred in determining the case by applying the dependency statute holding that case by case employment of the dutyrisk analysis is the appropriate standard in this state for determining legal responsibilities for negligent misrepresentations