Heck et al v. Buhler et al

Filing 261

Factual Finding Made Pursuant to the Ruling and Order. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 12/23/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RAYMOND E. HECK, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 07-21-BAJ-SCR
KENNETH K. BUHLER, ET AL.
FACTUAL FINDING MADE PURSUANT TO THE RULING AND ORDER
Following

the

district

judge’s

Ruling

and

Order

issued

November 20, 2015,1 the parties were ordered to either (1) file a
stipulation stating the amount owed by defendant Wayne Triche to
satisfy the final judgment previously issued, including attorney’s
fees, or (2) file their respective calculations of the amount
Triche owes to satisfy the judgment, including attorney’s fees.
No stipulation was filed.

Defendant Triche filed a Statement

of Judgment Satisfaction, which included detailed calculations of
the amount he owes to satisfy the final judgment, including
attorney’s fees and legal interest.2

Plaintiffs filed a statement

titled Triche Never Offered to Pay the Full Amount of the Judgment,
but they did not dispute the accuracy of any of the defendant’s
calculations.3

Instead, the plaintiffs argued that the “law of the

case” is that the defendant’s liability for attorney’s fees is not

1

Record document number 251.

2

Record document number 255.

3

Record document number 256.

limited to 40 percent, and the district judge cannot alter the
final judgment by subsequently reducing the defendant’s liability
to

40

percent

Supplemental

of

the

Memorandum

attorney’s
in

Support

fees.4
of

Defendant

Statement

of

filed

a

Judgment

Satisfaction, in which he argued that the plaintiffs’ submission is
just another attempt to argue for a position that has already been
rejected by the district judge.5
The parties’s submissions have been considered.

Plaintiffs’

arguments are foreclosed by the district judge’s finding in his
Ruling and Order, and the undersigned has no authority to change
those findings.

Based on the information and the uncontested

calculations provided by the defendant, and in light of the
district judge’s Ruling and Order, the February 4, 2014 judgment
and the May 15, 2015 ruling on attorney’s fees, the undersigned
finds that the defendant offered to pay the full amount he properly
owes, including interest calculated through June 19, 2015.6
Although not specifically required by the Ruling and Order,

4

Record document number 256, pp. 2-3.

5

Record document number 257.

6

The check for the balance due, as calculated by the
defendant, is dated June 19, 2015. Record document number 257-1,
Exhibit A. A copy of the same check was previously filed. Record
document numbers 240-2, Exhibit B, p. 4, and 243-3, Exhibit B, p.
4. A copy of the check was first presented to counsel for the
plaintiffs, as part of an “offer of compromise,” sent to counsel
for the plaintiffs on June 19, 2015. The check itself was first
sent to counsel for the plaintiffs on October 12, 2015. Record
document numbers 255, p. 3, and 260, p. 1.
2

the undersigned also finds that (1) the plaintiffs have already
been paid $144,935.50 by disbursement of the supersedeas bond
funds, (2) the balance due, with interest calculated through June
19, 2015, is $86,378.43, (3) the defendant first offered to pay the
full amount he properly owes on June 19, 2015, and (4) the
defendant

unconditionally

tendered

the

balance

due

to

the

plaintiffs by the check dated June 19, 2015 sent to counsel for the
plaintiffs on October 12, 2015.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 23, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3