Core 4 Kebawk, LLC v. Ralph's Concrete Pumping, Inc. et al
Filing
203
ORDER granting 192 Motion for Summary Judgment on its counterclaim. FURTHER ORDERED that this order will not become effective until thirty (30) daysfrom the date it is signed. FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties are aware of a way to contact Cor e 4, they email this information to the Courts email address and copy all opposing counsel. FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court receives an opposition from Core 4 within the next thirty (30) days, it will reconsider its ruling to grant the pending motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be mailed to Core 4's address on record. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 1/29/2013. (cms, ) (cc: Core 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CORE 4 KEBAWK, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-2792
RALPH’S CONCRETE PLUMBING, INC, et al.
SECTION: “G”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Movant Loupe Construction and Consulting Company, Inc.’s (“Loupe”)
Motion for Summary Judgment1 on its counter-claim, seeking indemnification against CounterDefendant Core 4 Kewbawk, L.L.C. (“Core 4") in the amount of $127,677.50. The motion was filed
on July 6, 2012 and the submission date was set for August 29 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5,
opposition to a motion must be filed eight days before the noticed submission date. Core 4 has not
filed an opposition. Therefore, this motion is deemed to be unopposed. Moreover, this Court finds
that the pending motion has merit.2
Before this action was transferred to Section “G”, Judge Eldon E. Fallon granted Core 4's
counsel leave to withdraw, leaving Core 4 pro se. Before its attorneys withdrew, it provided a notice
of contact, instructing all future documents to be sent to Bill Wiley at a South Carolina address.3 The
record further indicates that Core 4, through Bill Wiley, last received documents in this matter on
1
Rec. Doc. 192.
2
In the pending motion, Loupe claims that Core 4 had twice agreed to indemnify Loupe for claims brought
in connection with its work performing oil clean-up services. Id. at p. 1. In a contract entered into between Loupe and
Core 4, Core 4 agreed to reimburse Loupe for all administrative costs and attorneys’ fees incurred producing documents
in response to a subpoena. See Rec. Doc. 192-2 at ¶ 4 (Loupe’s statement of undisputed facts); see also Rec. Doc. 192-3
at ¶ 9.3 (admissions of Core 4). Core 4 further agreed to indemnify Loupe in a settlement agreement in the event that
a party sought losses, claims or damages against Loupe in connection to work performed for Core 4. Rec. Doc. 192-1
at pp. 3-4. Loupe contends that Core 4's obligation to Loupe was triggered by the filing of several lawsuits connected
to the work Loupe performed for Core 4, which forced Loupe to incur costs. Id. at pp. 4-6. Again, Core 4 has failed to
oppose this motion.
3
Rec. Doc. 133.
July 28, 2011.4 Since that date, all mailed documents to Core 4 from this Court have been returned
as undeliverable.5 Therefore, it is unlikely that Core 4, or its representative, was aware of the
pending motion. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Loupe’s Motion for Summary Judgment6 on its counterclaim is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order will not become effective until thirty (30) days
from the date it is signed;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties are aware of a way to contact Core 4, they
email this information to the Court’s email address (efile-brown@laed.uscourts.gov) and copy all
opposing counsel;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court receives an opposition from Core 4 within
the next thirty (30) days, it will reconsider its ruling to grant the pending motion;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be mailed to Core 4's address on record.
29th
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ____ day of January, 2013.
_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ATTN: THE CLERK IS TO MAIL THIS ORDER TO CORE 4'S ADDRESS OF
RECORD.
4
Rec. Doc. 136.
5
See Rec. Doc. Nos. 136, 137, 178, 182, 183, 184, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197.
6
Rec. Doc. 192.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?