JB James Construction, L.L.C. VS State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation & Development and James Construction Group, L.L.C.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CA 1086 JB JAMES CONSTRUCTION L C VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT and JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP L C Judgment Rendered December 21 2011 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Inand t for the Parish Louisiana Rouge of East Baton State of Trial Court No 597 598 The Honorable Janice G Clark Judge Presiding David C Voss Attorneys for PlaintiffAppellant E Allen Graves Jr JB James Construction L C David W Carley Baton Rouge La Murphy J Foster III Steven B Loeb Attorneys for Defendant Appellee James Construction Group L C Baton Rouge La Darhlene Major Richelle N Moore Attorneys for Defendant Appellee Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Baton Rouge La BEFORE CARTER C PARRO AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ J 64ut 431 amattL CARTER C I This suit arises from a public bid dispute over a thirtysix million dollar construction project the project Louisiana Department of Transportation for the State of and Development DOTD JB James Construction L Appellant C instituted suit against DOTD and James Construction Group L C JCG seeking to enjoin DOM from awarding the contract for the project to have the award of the project remanded to DOTD for a determination of the lowest responsive bidder and alternatively for a judgment declaring the nullity of the contract Appellant did not seek a temporary restraining order and after suit was filed DOTD awarded the contract to JCG and JCG began work on the project The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court correctly sustained a dilatory exception raising the objection of unauthorized use of a summary proceeding and dismissed a rule for injunction when the act sought to be enjoined the award of the contract for the project had been accomplished After reviewing the record and applicable law we find no error in the decision of the trial court Once the act sought to be enjoined had occurred i the contract was awarded the injunctive relief e sought by Appellant was rendered moot and Appellant srecourse was I Appellant contends JCG failed to meet its burden on the dilatory exception because it did not introduce evidence However the fact that the contract had been awarded to JCG was undisputed leaving only the legal issue of whether the award of the contract warranted dismissal of Appellant rule for s injunctive relief K by ordinary proceeding See La Rev Stat Ann 222013 son 3 f3e Const Co Inc v City of 592 So 2d 1307 La 1992 ort Shreve Bristol Stecl unc Ir Works Cnc v Statc Dc c Transr uncl n t f velnpment D507 Sa 2d 1233 1235 La 1987 For the fore reasons the judgment of the trial court is oing firmed af in accordance 2 2A E 16 and with Uniform Court of Appeal Kule Costs of this appeal are assessed to Appellant IB James Construction L C ON MOT DENIED JUUGMENT AFFIRMED G JC and O havc fiilcd a jc motion to dismiss this appeal a5 n U I int t oc ltendin co thal the pr has subsiantially progi and conti to do so ject ucs thc work during the appeal process and that there is no practical way to While we agree with lhe trial court Lhat the injunctivc relicf sou by llppellant ht was rendered moot we tind no merit to ihe contenlion that this appcal i5 al5c moot ly Accordin the motion to dismiss thc app is denied al Appcllant argucs that Rc is inapplicable here as thc I on s n ouisiana Supreme Court cited as authority Louisiana Revised Statutes 1nnc 5ecti lated n 22208 38 and since then ihe Legislature has enactcd bid laws Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated section 48 e S ovcrning D contracts 250 e TD which contain no similar provision specifyin ihe use af summary proceedin to cnjoin tlte award ol contraci or to seek injunctive relicf Wc 1ir no ilto this a d ei nent u ar as DOT Dreinains bound by laws relating to obli ai to I lions d l O when those laws aru not in conflict witl tl UOTU bid laws w tind no cc e lict n here For this reascm we Iind no ierit in JCG and I joii n tc s UTD t otior dismiss this appeal f15 pt Ill which wc havc denied in a separatc actioi

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.