Team Contractors, L.L.C. et al v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. et al
Filing
488
ORDER AND REASONS - The 451 motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C.'s request for oral argument on its motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/20/19. (sbs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TEAM CONTRACTORS, LLC,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-1131
WAYPOINT NOLA, LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants
SECTION: “E”(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Waypoint
NOLA, L.L.C. (“Waypoint”). 1 Plaintiff Team Contractors, LLC (“Team”) opposes. 2 For the
following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On February 5, 2016, Team filed a complaint against Defendants HC Architecture,
Inc. (“HCA”), KLG, L.L.C. (“KLG”), 3 and Waypoint. 4 Team alleged it entered into a
construction contract with Waypoint to construct and renovate portions of Waypoint’s
property at 1250 Poydras St. in New Orleans. 5 Team alleged there were errors in the plans
and specifications provided by Waypoint for the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
(“MEP”) systems relating to the construction project. 6 Team also alleged Waypoint
directed it to modify the MEP systems, but did not compensate Team for the additional
costs Team incurred as a result of the modifications. 7 Plaintiff Team brought a breach of
contract claim against Waypoint, alleging Waypoint’s failure to compensate Team
R. Doc. 451.
R. Doc. 457.
3 Defendant KLG informed the Court in its answer that it is now known as Salas O’Brien South, L.L.C. R.
Doc. 34. The parties continued to refer to it as KLG. The Court will continue to do so in this order.
4 R. Doc. 1.
5 Id. at 2, ¶ 7.
6 Id. at 3, ¶ 16.
7 Id. at 4–5.
1
2
1
breached the construction contract. 8 Team also brought negligence claims against
Waypoint, HCA, and KLG. 9
This Court conducted a jury trial in this matter from February 26, 2018 to March
9, 2018. There were three remaining claims at trial: Team’s breach of contract claim
against Waypoint and Team’s negligence claims against HCA and KLG. 10 Team did not
pursue a negligence claim against Waypoint at trial. 11 The jury awarded Team
$565,979.99 in damages. 12 On the negligence claims against HCA and KLG, the jury found
HCA and KLG’s conduct violated their professional duties of care and caused damage to
Team. 13 The jury also found Waypoint had not breached the contract. 14 However, the jury
assigned Waypoint and its agent responsibility for damages. 15 When assigning
“percentages of responsibility for the damages” awarded, the jury assigned 30% to HCA,
60% to KLG, 5% to Waypoint, and 5% to Waypoint’s agent Steve Laski, who was not a
party to the suit. 16
On March 19, 2018, the Court entered judgment on the verdict against Defendants
HCA and KLG for $509,381.99, representing 90% of the total damages the jury awarded. 17
The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant Waypoint on the breach of contract
claim. 18 On April 2, 2018, Team filed a motion to amend, arguing the jury’s finding that
Id. at 5.
Id. at 5–7.
10 R. Doc. 364.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 3, ¶ 8.
13 Id. at 1, ¶ 1–4.
14 Id. at 2, ¶ 6.
15 Id. at 4, ¶ 9.
16 Id.
17 R. Doc. 370.
18 Id.
8
9
2
Waypoint did not breach its contract with Team was irreconcilably inconsistent with its
assigning Waypoint and its agent responsibility for damages. 19
On September 6, 2018, the Court granted Team’s motion. 20 The Court found the
jury verdict irreconcilably inconsistent, vacated the judgment in favor of Waypoint on
Team’s breach of contract claim, and ordered a new trial on the claim. 21
On January 14, 2019, Waypoint filed the instant motion for summary judgment on
Team’s claim for attorneys’ fees. 22 Waypoint argues that, regardless of the jury verdict at
the second trial, Team will not have substantially prevailed, and Waypoint is therefore
entitled to summary judgment denying that claim. 23 Waypoint bases its argument on the
following provision of the construction contract between Team and Waypoint:
In the event of any litigation arising under this Agreement, should one party
substantially prevail with respect to the matters being litigated, the nonprevailing party shall pay the prevailing party’s costs and expenses of such
litigation, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. 24
Team opposes the motion, arguing it substantially prevailed against Waypoint in the first
trial or, alternatively, that it may substantially prevail at the upcoming trial. 25
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” 26 “An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action.” 27
When assessing whether a material factual dispute exists, the Court considers “all of the
R. Doc. 372.
R. Doc. 420.
21 Id. at 8–10.
22 R. Doc. 451.
23 R. Doc. 451-1.
24 R. Doc. 451-3 at 49, ¶ 15.3.2.
25 R. Doc. 457.
26 FED. R. CIV. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986).
27 DIRECTV Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 2005).
19
20
3
evidence in the record but refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing
the evidence.” 28 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. 29
There is no genuine issue of material fact if, even viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving
party, thus entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. 30
If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will bear the burden of
persuasion at trial, the moving party “must come forward with evidence which would
‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.’” 31 If the
moving party fails to carry this burden, the motion must be denied. If the moving party
successfully carries this burden, the burden of production then shifts to the nonmoving
party to direct the Court’s attention to something in the pleadings or other evidence in the
record setting forth specific facts sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of material
fact does indeed exist. 32
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden
of persuasion at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden of production by either (1)
submitting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmovant’s
claim, or (2) demonstrating there is no evidence in the record to establish an essential
element of the nonmovant’s claim. 33
Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 2008); see also
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150–51 (2000).
29 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
30 Smith v. Amedisys, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2002).
31 Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263–64 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Golden Rule Ins. Co.
v. Lease, 755 F. Supp. 948, 951 (D. Colo. 1991)).
32 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–24.
33 Id. at 331–32 (Brennan, J., dissenting); see also St. Amant v. Benoit, 806 F.2d 1294, 1297 (5th Cir. 1987)
(citing Justice Brennan’s statement of the summary judgment standard in Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–24, and
requiring the movants to submit affirmative evidence to negate an essential element of the nonmovant’s
claim or, alternatively, demonstrate the nonmovant’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential
element); Fano v. O’Neill, 806 F.2d 1262, 1266 (citing Justice Brennan’s dissent in Celotex, and requiring
the movant to make an affirmative presentation to negate the nonmovant’s claims on summary judgment);
28
4
LAW AND ANALYSIS
This motion raises the legal question of the interpretation of the contract term
providing that, in litigation arising under the construction contract, if one party
“substantially prevail[s] with respect to the matters being litigated, the non-prevailing
party” must pay costs, including attorneys’ fees. 34
Team does not contest the terms of the contract agreement as quoted in Waypoint’s
motion. Under the terms of the contract, the non-prevailing party must pay costs,
including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, if one party substantially prevails “in litigation”
arising under the contract “with respect to the matters being litigated.” 35 It also is
undisputed that Team’s breach of contract claim against Waypoint has not yet been
decided. 36 The jury has not heard the evidence or reached a verdict on whether Waypoint
breached the contract. As a result, the Court cannot determine at this point whether Team
has substantially prevailed with respect to the matters being litigated.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary
judgment filed by Defendant Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. be and hereby is DENIED. 37
10A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
§2727.1 (2016) (“Although the Court issued a five-to-four decision, the majority and dissent both agreed as
to how the summary-judgment burden of proof operates; they disagreed as to how the standard was applied
to the facts of the case.” (internal citations omitted)).
34 R. Doc. 451-3 at 49, ¶ 15.3.2.
35 Id.
36 Waypoint argues that Team’s recovery cannot be substantial because of the result of the first trial. The
Court rejects this argument.
37 R. Doc. 451.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C.’s
request for oral argument on its motion for summary judgment be and hereby is
DENIED AS MOOT. 38
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of March, 2019.
______ _________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
38
R. Doc. 452.
6
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?