Savage Services Corporation v. Cajun Industries LLC

Filing 96

ORDER ADOPTING 90 Memorandum and Recommendations GRANTING 56 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Savage Service Corporation's Claim for Attorneys' Fees, GRANTING IN PART DENYING IN PART 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial Summary Judgment on Cajun's Counterclaim and Savage's Claims, GRANTING 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Drew B Tipton) Parties notified. (rlm4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SAVAGE SERVICES CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAJUN INDUSTRIES, LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

September 25, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-03405

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the August 30, 2024, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 90).
Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Claims and Against All Claims of Defendant,
(Dkt. No. 27) be granted; Defendant Cajun Industries, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on Cajun’s Counterclaims and Savage’s Claims, (Dkt. No. 55), be granted in
part and denied in part; and Defendant Cajun Industries, LLC’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Savage Service Corporations’ Claim for Attorneys’ Fees, (Dkt.
No. 56), be granted.
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On September 13, 2024, Defendant Cajun
Industries, LLC filed several objections to Judge Bray’s M&R. (Dkt. No. 91). First, Cajun
objected to Judge Bray’s conclusion that Savage paid Cajun in full under the contract. (Id.
at 8–10).

Second, Cajun objects to the M&R’s interpretation of the Change Order

provisions of the contract. (Id. at 10–14). Third, Cajun objects to Judge Bray’s conclusion
that declaratory judgment is appropriate. (Id. at 14–15). Finally, Cajun argues that the
M&R went beyond contract interpretation and made factual findings that ignored key
evidence regarding the calculation of the Cost Savings Amount. (Id. at 16–18). On
September 23, 2024, Savage responded to Cajun’s objections. (Dkt. No. 94).
In addition, on September 13, 2024, Plaintiff Savage Service Corporation filed
objections to Judge Bray’s M&R. (Dkt. No. 92). First, Savage objects to the M&R’s
conclusion that the relevant sections of the contract were conditions precedent under the
contract. (Id. at 1–2, 7–8). Second, Savage objects to Judge Bray’s conclusion that Savage’s
requested briefing raised entirely new issues by citing other provisions of the contract.
(Id. at 2–7). On September 23, 2024, Cajun responded to Savage’s objections. (Dkt. No.
95).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After
conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which
objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and
adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
2

(1)

Magistrate Judge Peter Bray’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 90), is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court;

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Claims and
Against All Claims of Defendant, (Dkt. No. 27), is GRANTED;

(3)

Defendant Cajun Industries, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
on Cajun’s Counterclaims and Savage’s Claims, (Dkt. No. 55), is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and

(4)

Defendant Cajun Industries, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
on Savage Service Corporations’ Claim for Attorneys’ Fees, (Dkt. No. 56), is
GRANTED.

A final judgment will issue separately.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on September 24, 2024.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3