CFP New Orleans, LLC v. Orleans Parish Judicial District Court Building Commission et al
Filing
51
ORDER AND REASONS as to Rec. Doc. 40 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant, Orleans Parish Judicial District Court Building Commission's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in PART, as set forth in document. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 5/3/2018. (sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CFP NEW ORLEANS, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-15474
ORLEANS PARISH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT BUILDING
COMMISSION, JUDGE KERN REESE,
AND JUDGE CHRISTOPHER BRUNO
SECTION “N”- KDE -JVM
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Orleans
Parish Judicial District Court Building Commission (“JBC”). Having carefully reviewed the
parties’ submissions, the remainder of the record in this matter, and applicable law, IT IS
ORDERED that the motion (Rec. Doc. 40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as
stated herein.
Specifically, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED relative to Plaintiff CFP
New Orleans, LLC’s (“CFP”) claim for the $467,564.00 expended by Civic Development
Collaborative (“CDC”) to obtain “site control” of the Canal Street and Cleveland Avenue
immovable properties at issue here. Even construing the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, as the Court
must on summary judgment, Plaintiff CFP has failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue
of fact relative to the JBC’s alleged obligation to reimburse either CFP or CDC for these funds.
1
In short, the parties’ legal obligations are addressed in a twenty-page written contract – the
“Professional Services Agreement” (“PSA”) – entered into by CFP and the JDC in December
2014, with an effective date of February 18, 2014, that was executed after months of meetings and
communications amongst sophisticated parties having the benefit of counsel. Significantly,
however, though $180,000 of the $476,564.00 that CFP seeks to recover for land acquisition were
expended by CDC months before the December 2014 execution date of the PSA, nothing was
included in the contract to establish the JDC’s ultimate responsibility for those amounts or any
other sums necessary for further extensions of time. Rather, although the third “Whereas” clause
of the PSA expressly acknowledges that CDC has entered into a purchase agreement relative to
immovable property to serve as the situs for the anticipated courthouse, Article III, Section 2(A)(3)
of the PSA simply provides for CFP and JBC, during Phase 1, to “negotiate and enter into a
definitive binding agreement for the purchase of the property, on terms and conditions satisfactory
to JBC in its sole discretion.” 1
As set forth in the Court’s prior Order and Reasons (Rec. Doc. 25), had CFP wanted a
different rule to apply relative to the immovable property in question, such a provision seemingly
could have easily being included in the parties’ written agreement. CFP did not, however, and
cannot now simply ignore the provisions of the parties’ written contract that are unfavorable to its
position. Furthermore, though CFP avers reliance on Judge Reese’s alleged verbal directives to
CFP and CDC regarding “site control” (without ever requiring written proof of bylaws and/or
resolutions authorizing such measures by a public body relative to immovable property), no
evidence is cited reflecting any assertion by Judge Reese that the JBC would actually pay for the
expenses he purportedly sought to have CDC bear.
1
See Rec. Doc. 40-3, p. 6 of 19 (emphasis added).
2
Finally, given the significant financial development fees potentially payable to CFP under
the PSA, and the substantial potential earnings that CDC’s planned development of a parking
garage (and other improvements) on an adjoining part of the property in question would provide,
it is hardly that inconceivable both CFP or CDC willingly chose to forego any opportunity to
recover the costs of site control from the JBC. Indeed, it was only when the JBC terminated the
contract in October 2015 that any charges for site control of the land to be utilized for the future
courthouse appeared on any of CFP’s invoices to the JBC. 2
With respect to the additional sums sought by CFP relative to “Development Fees” or
additional reimbursement for “Professional Architectural Services” (see Rec. Doc. 43-4, p. 12 of
122), Defendant JBC’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. A careful review of the
parties’ written submissions reveals the existence of disputed material facts regarding the
$343,451.33 paid by JBC on July 21, 2015 that are appropriately determined at trial with the
benefit of live testimony. 3
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of May 2018.
_________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
See Rec. Doc. 43-4, p. 7 of 122 - p. 13 of 122, and p. 21 of 122.
Id.; see also; Rec. Doc. 40-5 (including the July 7, 2015 email from Pat Tobler to Pat Gootee and George
Bendick); Rec. Doc. 43-3, p. 5 of 5; Rec. Doc. 43-4, p. 2 of 122- p. 5 of 122; Rec. Doc. 43-5.
3
3
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?