84 Lumber Company v. F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen & Associates, LLC et al, No. 2:2012cv01748 - Document 305 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 295 and 298 Motions Entry of Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/14/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
84 Lumber Company v. F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen & Associates, LLC et al Doc. 305 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 84 LUMBER COMPANY VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1748 F.H. PASCHEN, S.N. NIELSEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER AN D REASON S Plaintiff 84 Lum ber Com pany m oves for entry of final judgm ent as to the Court’s May 16, 20 17 and Septem ber 14, 20 17 orders. 1 For the following reasons, the Court denies the m otions. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of two school construction projects in Louisiana. 2 Defendant F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen & Associates, LLC (Paschen) entered into contracts to build an elementary school at the Mildred Osborne School in New Orleans (Osborne Project) and a high school in South Plaquem ines Parish (South Plaquem ines Project). 3 Paschen also entered into a contract 1 2 3 R. Docs. 295, 298. R. Doc. 28 at 2-3 ¶ 5. Id. at 3 ¶ 5. Dockets.Justia.com with the Plaquem ines Parish School Board to build. 4 On both projects, Paschen was the general contractor. 5 Both projects were subject to the provisions of the Louisiana Public Works Act (LPWA), La. R.S. § 38:2241, et seq., and therefore each project required the general contractors to post payment bonds before construction could begin. 6 Defendants Continental Casualty Com pany, Safeco Insurance Com pany of America, and Fidelity & Deposit Com pany of Maryland (collectively, the Sureties) issued the required bonds. 7 Paschen subcontracted a portion of both projects to J & A Construction Managem ent Resources Com pany, Inc. (J & A). 8 J & A in turn subcontracted a portion of its work on both projects to 84 Lum ber. 9 84 Lum ber alleges that Paschen and J & A have failed to com pensate it for its work on the projects. 10 84 Lumber filed several statements of claim under the LPWA: one in November 20 11 for $ 3,50 7.16 in m aterials supplied on the Osborne Project, and two in J une 20 12 for $ 1,850 ,60 0 .48 in work performed on the Osborne 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Id. Id. at Id. at Id. Id. at Id. at Id. at 2 ¶ 5. 3 ¶ 6. 3 ¶ 7. 3 ¶ 9. 3-4 ¶ 9. 2 and South Plaquem ines Projects. 11 Paschen and Continental later posted release bonds for these statem ents of claim . 12 On J uly 5, 20 12, 84 Lum ber sued Paschen and the Sureties, alleging that 84 Lum ber was not paid in full for work performed on the Osborne and South Plaquem ines Projects. 13 84 Lum ber sued under the LPWA, seeking payment on its J une 20 12 statements of claim from both Paschen and the Sureties. 14 84 Lumber also brought a claim of unjust enrichm ent. 15 On February 5, 20 13, 84 Lum ber amended its com plaint to add a breach of contract claim and to seek paym ent for m aterials provided and extra work perform ed on the projects. 16 84 Lum ber again amended its com plaint on April 17, 20 17, seeking recovery from the release bonds. 17 The Court granted sum m ary judgment dism issing 84 Lumber’s initial LPWA claim s because the J une 20 12 statements of claim lacked proper notice under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 38:2242(B). 18 The Court also granted sum m ary judgm ent on and dism issed 84 Lum ber’s unjust 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 See R. Doc. 296 at 2-3. R. Doc. 249 at 1-2 ¶¶ 1-3. R. Doc. 1. Id. at 4-5 ¶¶ 13-14, 16. Id. at 6 ¶ 18. R. Doc. 28 at 4 ¶ 10 , 6 ¶ 20 . R. Doc. 249. R. Doc. 263 at 23. 3 enrichment claim . 19 Later, the Court granted judgm ent on the pleadings and dism issed 84 Lumber’s release bond claim . 20 84 Lumber now m oves for final judgm ent as to these dism issed claim s. II. D ISCU SSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure perm its the Court to enter final judgm ent as to some, but not all, claim s if “there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “One of the prim ary policies behind requiring a justification for Rule 54(b) certification is to avoid piecemeal appeals.” PYCA Indus. v. Harrison Cty . W aste W ater Mgm t. Dist., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996). Rule 54(b) judgm ents are not favored and should be awarded only when necessary to avoid “hardship or injustice through delay,” and “should not be entered routinely as a courtesy to counsel.” Id. One factor the district court should consider is whether the appellate court “would have to decide the same issues m ore than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” H & W Indus., Inc. v. Form osa Plastics Corp., USA, 860 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Curtiss-W right Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980 )). The Court has dism issed all of 84 Lum ber’s 19 20 Id. at 24. R. Doc. 296. 4 Louisiana Public Works Act (LPWA) claim s except for its $3,50 7.16 claim for m aterials. The dism issed claim s involve legal questions related to proper notice under the LPWA, while the materials claim does not. Thus, the appellate court would not have to decide the sam e issues m ore than once if there were subsequent appeals. Nonetheless, after weighing the appropriate factors, the Court finds that certification is inappropriate in this case. 84 Lumber has not shown that it would be prejudiced by a delay in entry of final judgment. A bench trial is set for J anuary 29, 20 18. 21 A delay of a few m onths, while inconvenient to 84 Lumber, does not indicate that this is the sort of “infrequent harsh case” that Rule 54(b) was designed to address. Jasm in v. Dum as, 726 F.2d 242, 244 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 advisory com m ittee’s note to 1946 am endment). Thus, the hardship or injustice 84 Lum ber would suffer by the delay of a few m onths in entering final judgm ent do not outweigh the costs of piecemeal review. 21 R. Doc. 216. 5 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES 84 Lumber’s m otions for entry of final judgment. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ 14th _ day of November, 20 17. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 6
]]>
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.
