Core 4 Kebawk, LLC v. Ralph's Concrete Pumping, Inc. et al

Filing 267

AMENDED ORDER & REASONS re dft/cross-pla/third-party pla Farrow construction Specialties, Inc.'s 254 Motion for Summary Judgment: The pending motion was filed on April 16, 2013, and set for submission on May 8, 2013. To date, Cross-Defendants have not filed an opposition to the pending motion. Accordingly, no material facts are claimed to be in dispute and because the Court finds that the pending motion has merit, for the reasons cited in Farrow's memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Farrow's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and judgment be issued in favor of Farrow and against Cross-Defendants in the amount of $1,766,538. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 5/23/2013.(rll, ) Modified on 5/23/2013 to edit doc type (rll, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CORE 4 KEBAWK, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 10-2792

RALPH'S CONCRETE PUMPING, INC. et al.

SECTION: “G”(2)

AMENDED ORDER AND REASONS1
Before the Court is Defendant/cross-plaintiff/third-party plaintiff Farrow Construction
Specialities, Inc.'s ("Farrow") Motion for Summary Judgment,2 wherein it requests that this Court
enter judgment against Cross-Defendants Larry Howell, Kebawk Group, LLC, and Core 4 Kebawk
LLC (collectively, "Cross-Defendants"), entitling Farrow May 22, 2013to $1,766,538 from CrossDefendants. The pending motion was filed on April 16, 2013, and set for submission on May 8,
2013.3 To date, Cross-Defendants have not filed an opposition to the pending motion.4Accordingly,
no material facts are claimed to be in dispute and because the Court finds that the pending motion

1

The Court issues this Amended Order and Reasons to correct the caption. No substantive change to the order
has been made from the original Order and Reasons (Rec. Doc. 261).
2

Rec. Doc. 254.

3
When Farrow initially filed the pending motion, it was not accepted because Farrow exceeded the page
limitation set by the Court without first requesting leave of court. See Rec. Doc. 248. Farrow subsequently received leave
of court to exceed the page limit, and the motion was accepted. See Rec. Doc. Nos. 251, 253, 254.
4

Local Rule 7.5 requires that:
Each party opposing a motion must file and serve a memorandum in opposition to the motion
with citations of authorities no later than eight days before the noticed submission date. If
the opposition requires consideration of facts not in the record, counsel must also file and
serve all evidence submitted in opposition to the motion with the memorandum.

On several other occasions the Court has addressed Cross-Defendants' recent and complete failure to participate in this
matter, creating delay and confusion among the parties. See Rec. Doc. 138 (Judge Fallon dismissing Core 4's claims for
failure to appear and inform the Court that it had retained new counsel); Rec. Doc. Nos. 206, 207 (minute entry and order
explaining that the Court would continue the trial based on various parties' failure to participate – including CrossDefendants); Rec. Doc. Nos. 259, 260 (orders granting parties' motions to dismiss Larry Howell's claims pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for his failure to prosecute his claims).

has merit, for the reasons cited in Farrow's memorandum in support of the motion for summary
judgment,5
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Farrow's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED,
and judgment be issued in favor of Farrow and against Cross-Defendants in the amount of
$1,766,538.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ____ day of May, 2013.

_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Rec. Doc. 254-1

2