Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C. v. Wackenhut Corporation, No. 2:2009cv07367 - Document 114 (E.D. La. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER and REASONS - Presently before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff, Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C. and Defendant, Wackenhut Corporation. The Court has carefully reviewed all of the parties' submissions, the record, an d applicable law. For essentially the reasons stated in Entergy's supporting and opposing memoranda, IT IS ORDERED that Entergy's motions for summary judgment 44 and 72 are GRANTED and Wackenhut's motion 58 is DENIED as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 12/16/2010. (cab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C. v. Wackenhut Corporation Doc. 114 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ENTERGY LOUISIANA, L.L.C. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 09-7367 WACKENHUT CORPORATION SECTION “N” (4) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court are motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff, Entergy Louisiana, L.L.C. (“Entergy”) and Defendant, Wackenhut Corporation (“Wackenhut”). See Rec. Docs. 44, 58, and 72. The Court has carefully reviewed all of the parties’ submissions, the record, and applicable law. For essentially the reasons stated in Entergy’s supporting and opposing memoranda, IT IS ORDERED that Entergy’s motions for summary judgment (Rec. Docs. 44 and 72) are GRANTED and Wackenhut’s motion (Rec. Doc. 58) is DENIED. Additionally, the Court notes that, here, the parties’ contract sets forth the procedure for changing contractual terms. Thus, with respect to Wackenhut's quantum meruit claim, this was not a situation where there was "no [contractual] provisions by which payment could be made for unanticipated labor." See Wackenhut Opposition Memorandum (Rec. Doc. 57) at pp. 5-6. Furthermore, Wackenhut cannot show a reasonable expectation of payment from Entergy relative to its quantum meruit claim, or a breach of contract by Entergy, where: (1) Wackenhut did not actually pay its employees for any additional services as they were rendered and Dockets.Justia.com never admitted to liability as part of the Alexander proceeding; (2) no change order was issued/approved by the parties in accordance with contract provisions; (3) there is no evidence of follow-up by Wackenhut, in accordance with its October 2004 letter, relative to "working with each of you to implement this best practice in as cost effective manner as possible"; and (4) the parties’ contract requires Wackenhut to indemnify Entergy for any failure by Wackenhut to comply with applicable laws. See January 1, 1998 Re-Stated Agreement (Rec. Doc. 44-4) at ¶¶ 1.5, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9.1 and 9.6. Similarly, there is no showing that Entergy, a non-party, approved and/or consented to bearing any responsibility for any portion of Wackenhut’s voluntary settlement of Alexander in 2008, and/or Wackenhut’s incurrence of defense costs relative to that matter. Finally, Wackenhut cannot demonstrate that Entergy "accepted" additional services for purposes of Wackenhut’s quantum meruit claim. Wackenhut’s October 2004 letter simply advises of a recent determination of "best practice," and that its implementation “may result in a minimal increase in some of your site budgets." See October 18, 2004 Letter (Rec. Doc. 58-5) at p. 2 (emphasis added). Significantly, Wackenhut’s security employees at the Waterford 3 facility already were paid for the 30 minutes preceding the official start times of their 12-hour shifts. See Affidavit of Robert Creel (Rec. Doc. 76-2) at ¶4; Declaration of Ray Cogdell (Rec. Doc. 58-6) at ¶ 11. Additionally, Wackenhut, an independent contractor, was responsible for paying its employees’ wages and salaries. Id. at ¶¶10.1 and 10.2. Moreover, Entergy was not invoiced for additional time (such that it would have been put on notice of additional amounts being owed for services) until 2009. See, e.g., Declaration of Ray Cogdell (Rec. Doc. 58-6) at ¶¶ 14-15. 2 In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Entergy’s motions are granted. Accordingly, Wackenhut’s quantum meruit and breach of contract claims are dismissed with prejudice. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of December 2010. ___________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
