Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans

Filing 692

ORDER AND REASONS denying without prejudice 687 Motion for Writ of Execution. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that HANO's Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 688) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 3/4/21. (Reference: 15-1533)(cg)

Case 2:15-cv-01533-CJB-KWR Document 692 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PARKCREST BUILDERS, LLC,

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 15-1533
c/w 16-15849

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW
ORLEANS

SECTION: “J”(4)
Applies to 15-1533

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court are a Petition for Writ of Execution and Other Proceedings
Supplemental to Judgment (Rec. Doc. 687) filed by Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company (“Liberty”) and a Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment (Rec. Doc. 688)
filed by the Housing Authority of New Orleans (“HANO”). Liberty contends that a
writ of execution should issue because the federal interest in enforcement of the
attorney’s fees judgment overrides the prohibition against seizure of public property
in Article XII, § 10(C) of the Louisiana Constitution.
“[W]hen there is a federal interest in the remedy, [the Court] may trump a
state’s anti-seizure provision and enforce a money judgment against a public entity.”
Freeman Decorating Co. v. Encuentro Las Americas Trade Corp., 352 F. App’x 921,
923 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Liberty first contends that there is a “federal interest
to see that federal funds are used to pay the judgments due and owing to Liberty.”1
While HANO is entirely funded by the federal government, it has not yet been
appropriated funds to satisfy the judgment at issue here, and Liberty is not seeking

1

(Rec. Doc. 687-1, at 4).

Case 2:15-cv-01533-CJB-KWR Document 692 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 4

an order directing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)
to appropriate such funds. Rather, Liberty’s petition is seeking to seize property
owned by the State of Louisiana via HANO—state property—and therefore this
argument is inapposite.
Similarly, Liberty contends that “[t]here is a federal interest in seeing that an
entity funded and controlled by the federal government properly pays a federal court
judgment.”2 This is a truism, as the Court has an interest in seeing that all of its
judgments are satisfied, and fails to address whether a sufficient federal interest
exists in this dispute to override a state constitutional provision prohibiting seizure
of public property.
Third, Liberty argues that HANO is unwilling to comply with the attorney’s
fee judgment because it “has not attempted to satisfy this judgment or post any
security to stay execution as it was previously ordered to do with respect to” the
merits judgment.3 The Court previously explained: “[A] federal interest may develop
if a subdivision of the state proves sufficiently resistant to paying a judgment. . . .
However, the state entity must be guilty of more than mere sloth for a federal interest
to arise.” Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Hous. Auth. of New Orleans, No. 15-1533, 2018
WL 6267285, at *2-3 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2018) (citing Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268,
1271 (5th Cir. 1980), and Freeman, 352 F. App’x at 925).

2
3

Id.
Id. at 5.
2

Case 2:15-cv-01533-CJB-KWR Document 692 Filed 03/04/21 Page 3 of 4

At this point, HANO cannot be said to be guilty of unreasonable delay, as only
three months have passed since the attorney’s fees judgment was entered. See
Freeman, 352 F. App’x at 925 (holding that a letter sent a year and a half after
judgment was entered, which indicated that the City of New Orleans did not believe
it was required to immediately satisfy the judgment, was not sufficient to create a
federal interest). Further, Liberty has not even provided evidence that HANO has
rejected a demand for payment on the attorney’s fees judgment, much less any
evidence that HANO “intends to never satisfy the judgment.” Id. (emphasis added).
While Liberty refers to evidence that HANO is unable to satisfy this, or any, judgment
without an appropriation from HUD, it conflates the inability to independently
satisfy the judgment with an intention to never do so. Cf. Gary W. v. State of
Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805-06 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that a federal interest arose
only after the Louisiana Legislature rejected two bills to authorize payment of the
judgment). Liberty has not presented any evidence that HANO’s appropriation
request was denied by HUD. Further, the record reflects that Liberty was promptly
paid once it prevailed in HANO’s appeal of the merits judgment.4 Therefore, Liberty
has failed to establish that HANO “intend[s] to resist judgment until the bitter end”
such that a federal interest sufficient to overcome Louisiana’s anti-seizure provisions
exists. Gates, 616 F.2d at 1272.
Accordingly,

The Court of Appeals issued its mandate on May 19, 2020 (Rec. Doc. 656) and funds representing the
entire amount of the merits judgment were dispersed to Liberty on May 20, 2020 (Rec. Doc. 658).
4

3

Case 2:15-cv-01533-CJB-KWR Document 692 Filed 03/04/21 Page 4 of 4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Liberty’s Petition for Writ of Execution (Rec.
Doc. 687) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that HANO’s Motion to Stay (Rec. Doc. 688)
is DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of March, 2021.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4