Louisiana Stucco and Masonry, L.L.C. VS MBD Construction Company, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 CA 1365 LOUISIANA STUCCO MASONRY LLC VERSUS 0N MBD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC AND ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY @ Judgment Rendered Appealed 12 2010 from the February fieJ Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court Number 555 163 Honorable William Morvant Craig L Zachary Kaster Rouge Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Louisiana Stucco LA John S McLindon Baton Judge LA Masonry LLC Counsel for Defendants Appellees MBD Construction Co Inc and Arch Insurance Co John B Brumfield Baton Rouge LA Counsel for Defendants Appellants Perkins Rowe Associates LLC and Perkins Rowe Associates II LLC BEFORE WHIPPLE HUGHES AND WELCH JJ HUGHES J This is 2009 an appeal confirming Construction an a district arbitration and Perkins court award and Inc Company LLC Associates from judgment signed February In its four assignments authority of relief as to arbitrator court only were erred in a not portion parties authorized separate suit collectively debtors award because it s by the arbitration agreement s award because the was 1 the provided the petition seeking should have court judgment when the arbitration award named the the district 3 improperly filed and 4 the district 2 multiple hearings by named both LLC and Perkins Rowe Associates II Perkins Rowe Associates judgment LLC II arbitration agreement of the claims asserted confirming the arbitrator a Rowe award because the arbitrator s the arbitrator confirmation of the arbitration award been filed in Perkins Perkins Rowe contends error under the confirming erred in court MBD Associates district court erred in confirming the arbitrator district appellee favor I Perkins Rowe exceeded his of appellants in against Rowe 19 only LLC as Perkins Rowe Associates LLC At the outset error as meritless Perkins Rowe in a we reject Perkins Rowe first three s All three of these arguments related lawsuit Perkins Rowe Associates unpublished opinion were assignments previously made by Keystone Structural Concrete LLC LLC and found 2009 1102 to La of App 1 be without merit Cir We v 12 23 09 find the I We note that other arbitration awards were confirmed in this judgment as to other parties not involved in this appeal which are not discussed herein Further we note that an earlier judgment was signed by the district court in October 2008 confirming other arbitration awards applicable appellants and appellee as well as other parties This earlier judgment was the subject of another appeal Number 2009 CA 0665 which was dismissed by a June 22 2009 order of this court The instant appeal was not made applicable to the October 2008 judgment as appellants motion for appeal sought to appeal only the judgment signed on February 19 2009 to 2 reasoning applied by this court in Keystone equally applicable in the instant appeal As Perkins Rowe to Perkins Rowe failed to remaining assignment s object before the district of error court to the we note that naming of both Perkins Rowe Associates LLC and Perkins Rowe Associates II LLC in the judgment confirming the arbitration inappropriate not to pled urged 2382 4 p consider or La Department of Health and Cir 6 10 05 906 So 2d 721 School Board 285 2002 0987 Exploration Mobil Subscribing 921 725 p 3 Inc Depot Geiger v 2003 0418 La 837 So 2d 11 So 2d 805 writs denied 2003 0417 2003 0427 2003 0438 843 So 2d 1129 3 rule Since the district on this opportunity which is See also Uniform Rules 1130 court was given no to remedy presented for Accordingly any insufficiency the first time we find no on we 1 Cir App 4 21 03 La 16 5 841 03 Appeal Rule in the instant case and therefore had decline to appeal 1 App Rowe appeal merit in this 3 Courts of opportunity particular contention by Perkins La 815 Certain Underwriters 2001 2219 p 36 La writ denied 02 844 So 2d 282 1120 02 41 rei ex Rouge Parish East Baton v U S Inc to Cover Note 95 3317 A 12 4 La 1 Cir 3 28 03 App Producing 11 p State v was State 2002 v 2004 1653 pp 6 7 Hudson La appeal that Johnson Hospital 2001 2206 Home v below court 851 So 2d 918 5 20 03 generally find it courts issue raised for the first time on an addressed in the So 2d 80 86 Jackson Appellate 1 to no address this issue CONCLUSION F or the reasons stated herein the district court judgment is affirmed in accordance with Uniform Rules are assessed to Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 2 All costs Perkins Rowe Associates LLC and Perkins Rowe Associates II LLC AFFIRMED 4

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.