Hi-Tech Electric, Inc. of Delaware v. T&B Construction and Electrical Services, Inc.

Filing 83

ORDERED that 69 Motion for Sanction and Contempt is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant T&B Construction and Electrical Services, Inc. has fourteen (14) days from the signing of this Order to come in compliance with the Courts order (R. Doc . 60) and purge this obligation. FURTHER ORDERED that, if this order is not purged, the Plaintiff Hi-Tech Electric Inc. of Delaware is awarded attorneys fees and costs in connection with the Motion for Sanction and Contempt (R. Doc. 69). FURTHER ORDE RED that, if this order is not purged, the Plaintiff Hi-Tech Electric Inc. of Delaware shall file a motion to fix attorney fees into the record as stated herein. Any opposition to the fee application shall be filed no later than October 18, 2016. The motion shall be set for submission on October 26, 2016, to be heard without oral argument. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (cml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HI-TECH ELECTRIC, INC. OF DELAWARE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO:

T&B CONSTRUCTION AND ELECTRICAL
SERVICES, INC.

SECTION: “R” (4)

15-3034

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Sanction and Contempt (R. Doc. 69) filed by Plaintiff
seeking the Court to hold Defendant in contempt and award sanctions for Defendant’s failure to
pay attorneys’ fees as ordered by the Court. The motion is not opposed. The motion was submitted
on September 21, 2016 and heard with arguments on the same day. For the following reasons, the
motion is GRANTED.
I.

Background
This diversity action arises out of a disagreement between Hi-Tech Electric (“HTE”), the

Plaintiff, and T&B Construction and Electrical Services, Inc. (“T&B”), the Defendant. R. Doc. 1,
p. 2. The parties entered into a teaming agreement to submit a proposal to a general contractor who
was responsible for building the replacement hospital of the Southeast Louisiana Veterans
Healthcare System. Thereafter, T&B centered into a written subcontract with the general
contractor to furnish electrical work for the Pan American Building which was a part of the project.
R. Doc. 1, p. 3. HTE argues that the Pan American subcontract included work to be performed by
HTE which it contends it completed; however, it was not paid in accordance with the contract. As
a result, HTE contends that it is owed $556,070.20 by T&B.
On May 31, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees related to its
Motion to Compel. R. Doc. 44. The Court determined that attorney’s fees were appropriate because
Defendant did not respond timely to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. R. Doc. 44, p. 5. On July 22,

1

2016, the Court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff $1,148.00 no later than twenty-one days from
the signing of the order. R. Doc. 60.
On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff states that it contacted the Defendant concerning the
attorneys’ fees due. R. Doc. 69-1, p. 2. While Defendant’s counsel stated that he would talk to the
Defendant, Plaintiff has not received any payment at this time. Id. As such, the Plaintiff has ask
the Court to find the Defendant in contempt for failing to obey a court order under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 37. Id. The Defendant has not opposed the motion nor appeared for the hearing
on the motion.
II.

Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides that a Court may award sanctions against a

party who fails to comply with a discovery order, including orders to pay reasonable expenses,
including attorney's fees in connection with a discovery order. Available Sanctions include striking
pleadings, staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, dismissing the action in whole or
in party, or treating the failure as contempt of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii).
Furthermore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C) states “Instead of or in addition to the
orders above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both
to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure
was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
III.

Analysis
Here, the Defendant has moved to find the Defendant in contempt and award sanctions

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. R. Doc. 69-1, p. 1-2. As an initial matter, the
Defendant’s actions are in violation of its order. First, there was a court order in effect, namely
this Court’s order requiring the Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiff for the motion to

2

compel. R. Doc. 60. Second, that order required the Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiff
within twenty-one days of its signing. Id. Third, the Defendant has not paid those fees. As such
absent any explanation or defense, the Court finds it within its power to sanction the Defendant
under Rule 37(b) for failing to comply with a discovery order. The Court will award expenses for
the instant motion to the Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C). The
Court further finds that the failure to comply to pay constitutes contempt of court pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(vii).
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanction and Contempt (R. Doc. 69)

is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant T&B Construction and Electrical
Services, Inc. has fourteen (14) days 1 from the signing of this Order to come in compliance with
the Court’s order (R. Doc. 60) and purge this obligation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if this order is not purged, the Plaintiff Hi-Tech
Electric Inc. of Delaware is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the Motion for
Sanction and Contempt (R. Doc. 69).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if this order is not purged, the Plaintiff Hi-Tech
Electric Inc. of Delaware shall file a motion to fix attorney fees into the record by October 11,
2016, along with: (1) an affidavit attesting to its attorney’s education, background, skills and
experience; (2) sufficient evidence of rates charged in similar cases by other local attorneys with
similar experience, skill and reputation and; (3) the documentation required by Local Rule 54.2.

1

While the Court stated orally that it would only provide 5 days for the Defendant to purge, the Court has adjusted
to fourteen days to allow for review if deemed necessary.
3

Any opposition to the fee application shall be filed no later than October 18, 2016. The motion
shall be set for submission on October 26, 2016, to be heard without oral argument.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of September 2016.

KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4