Hampton Hall LLC v. Chapman Coyle Chapman & Associates Architects AIA Inc et al

Filing 44

ORDER AND OPINION The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 41 ) and CLARIFIES that the order granting partial summary judgment applies only to claims (other than claims for gross negligence) regarding alleged defects in the Community Club House, and that summary judgment has not been granted for any claims relating to structures other than the Community Club House. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/12/2018.(sshe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Hampton Hall, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.

Chapman Coyle Chapman & Associates
Architects AIA, Inc., and Choate
Construction Company,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 9:17-1575-RMG

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs unopposed motion to reconsider the Court's
order on Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the Court's order on summary judgment. This
is a construction defect case. When granting partial summary judgment, the Court ruled certain
claims (claims other than gross negligence) are barred by South Carolina's statute of repose for
construction defect claims, which bars claims more than eight years after the date of substantial
completion. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of that order, which the Court denied. In the order
denying the motion for reconsideration, the Court noted,
Fourth, Plaintiff argues the Court focused on truss issues with the community
clubhouse to the neglect of code violations regarding stucco over parapet walls in
the clubhouse and other buildings. It is true that the documents establishing the
date of substantial completion on their face pertain only to the community
clubhouse. Discovery is still open and newly discovered evidence is a proper basis
for a motion to reconsider. Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F .3d at 403. If Plaintiff discovers a
certificate of substantial completion for another building in the project dated within
eight years of the filing of the present action, Plaintiff may move for reconsideration
as to that building.
Plaintiff requests the Court clarify its order to apply only to claims regarding the Community Club
House, also known as the Social Clubhouse. Defendants have stipulated that they do not assert

-1-

the statute of repose as a defense against any claims regarding any structure other than the
Community Club House (Dkt. No. 41-1), and they do not oppose Plaintiffs motion.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 41) and CLARIFIES that
the order granting partial summary judgment applies only to claims (other than claims for gross
negligence) regarding alleged defects in the Community Club House, and that summary judgment
has not been granted for any claims relating to structures other than the Community Club House.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
March l1-, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina

-2-