Threadgill, et al v. Orleans Parish Sch, et al

Filing 106

ORDER & REASONS GRANTING 104 MOTION TO LIFT STAY. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/15/2011.(Reference: 02-1122)(rll, ) Modified on 12/15/2011 to edit doc type (rll, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BUTCH THREADGILL, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 02-1122

ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL.

SECTION: R(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiffs Butch Threadgill and General Contracting and
Consulting Services move to lift the stay pending arbitration.1
Defendant Orleans Parish School Board does not oppose the
motion.2

Because the arbitration did not resolve all outstanding

claims in this matter, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion.

I.

DISCUSSION
On January 23, 2000, a severe hail storm caused significant

roof damage to Orleans Parish schools.

The Orleans Parish School

Board (“OPSB”) contracted with Mitch Crusto d/b/a Angelic Asset
Management, Inc. to adjust the insurance claims for the roof
damage with OPSB’s insurer, Travelers Insurance Company, and to
contract on an emergency basis to repair the damaged roofs.
Crusto contracted with Butch Threadgill and Tom Weems through
their business, General Contracting and Consulting Services, LLC,
1

R. Doc. 104.

2

R. Doc. 105.

to prepare bids and estimates for loss and damage to the schools’
roofs.

Crusto entered into two contracts with Threadgill, Weems,

and General Contracting, both of which provide that “[a]ny
conflicts or disputes will be submitted to binding arbitration.”3
On April 15, 2002, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against
Crusto and OPSB.4

Plaintiffs allege that they submitted repair

estimates and bid proposals to Crusto that were copyrighted to
Tom Weems, all rights reserved, and that Crusto violated
copyright law by distributing the bids to OPSB as his own for
approval.

Plaintiffs further allege that Crusto unlawfully

displayed the copyrighted work on his website.

In addition,

plaintiffs allege several state law causes of action against
Crusto, including breach of contract, fraud and violations of the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiffs’ causes of

action against OPSB consist of a violation of the Unfair Trade
Practices Act for interfering with their ability to contract for
the work of repairing the roofs, and a claim that OPSB knew or
should have known that the information being used by Crusto was
copyrighted material.
Plaintiffs filed a second lawsuit on May 10, 2002, naming as
defendants Crusto and the City of New Orleans.5

3

R. Doc. 38, Exs. A and B.

4

R. Doc. 1.

5

No. 02-1460, R. Doc. 1.
2

The claims

plaintiffs raise against Crusto in the second complaint are
virtually identical to those raised in the first.

Plaintiffs’

claims against the City of New Orleans mirror the claims alleged
against OPSB in the first complaint.

The Court consolidated the

two actions on December 3, 2002.6
OPSB answered plaintiffs’ complaint and filed a cross-claim
against Crusto.7

The cross-claim alleges that Crusto’s contract

with plaintiffs is void as a matter of public policy.

In

addition, OPSB challenges its own contract with Crusto.

OPSB

alleges that when Crusto signed his contract with OPSB he was not
a licensed contractor and did not possess insurance as required
by Louisiana law.
On February 11, 2003, Crusto filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay all proceedings, including litigation of
claims involving non-signatories to the arbitration agreement,
pending arbitration.8

The Court found that plaintiffs and Crusto

entered into a valid arbitration agreement and granted Crusto’s
motion to compel arbitration.9

Plaintiffs and Crusto entered

arbitration, and on June 17, 2009, the Court entered a judgment

6

R. Doc. 31.

7

R. Doc. 26.

8

R. Doc. 38.

9

R. Doc. 65.
3

confirming the arbitration award against Crusto.10

Plaintiffs

now ask the Court to lift the stay to allow the case to proceed
among the remaining parties.11
The Court finds that the following claims were not referred
to the arbitrator: plaintiffs’ claims against the City of New
Orleans, plaintiffs’ claims against OPSB, and OPSB’s claims
against Crusto.12

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to

lift the stay for those remaining claims.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to lift the
stay is GRANTED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of December, 2011.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

R. Doc. 84.

11

R. Doc. 104-1.

12

R. Doc. 65 at 11.
4