Team Contractors, L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. et al, No. 2:2016cv01131 - Document 530 (E.D. La. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 502 Motion to Strike Jury as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 4/8/2019. (tsf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Team Contractors, L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. et al Doc. 530 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A TEAM CON TRACTORS, LLC, ET AL. Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 16 -113 1 W AYPOIN T N OLA, LLC, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E”( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiff Team Contractors, LLC’s (“Team ”) Motion to Strike J ury. 1 Defendant Waypoint NOLA, LLC (“Waypoint”) opposes Team ’s m otion. 2 For the following reasons, the m otion is D EN IED . BACKGROU N D This dispute arises from contracts m ade in connection with the construction and renovation of Waypoint’s property at 1250 Poydras St. in New Orleans. On Septem ber 24, 20 14, Team and Waypoint entered into a construction contract (“the Prim e Contract”), under which Team becam e the general contractor for the Project. 3 The Prim e Contract included a clause in which the parties waived their right to a jury trial. 4 Waypoint also entered into a contract with HC Architecture, Inc. (“HCA”), under which HCA agreed to serve as the project’s architect. 5 HCA, in turn, subcontracted the m echanical, electrical, and plum bing design work to KLG, L.L.C. (“KLG”). 6 1 R. Doc. 50 2. R. Doc. 520 . 3 R. Doc. 50 2-3. 4 R. Doc. 50 2-3 at 49. 5 R. Doc. 446-3. 6 R. Doc. 157-18. Defendant KLG inform ed the Court in its answer that it is now known as Salas O’Brien South, L.L.C. R. Doc. 34. The parties continued to refer to it as KLG. The Court will continue to do so in this order. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com On February 5, 20 16, Team filed a com plaint against HCA, KLG, and Waypoint. 7 Team brought a breach of contract claim against Waypoint, alleging Waypoint failed to com pensate Team , in breach of the Prim e Contract. 8 Team also brought negligence claim s against Waypoint, HCA, and KLG, alleging they breached their professional duties of care and caused dam age to Team . 9 Team ’s Com plaint did not include a jury dem and. 10 On May 20 , 20 16, Waypoint filed its answer, including a jury dem and. 11 Team did not file a m otion to strike the jury dem and. In its Scheduling Order of August 31, 20 16, the Court set the first trial in this case for a jury trial. 12 In the parties’ pretrial order, filed on Septem ber 5, 20 17, they stated, “[t]his case is a jury case, and the jury trial is applicable to all aspects of the case.”13 This Court conducted a jury trial in this matter from February 26, 20 18 to March 9, 20 18. There were three rem aining claim s at trial: Team ’s breach of contract claim against Waypoint and Team ’s negligence claim s against HCA and KLG. 14 Team did not pursue a negligence claim against Waypoint at trial. 15 In the section of the jury verdict form dealing with liability, the jury found HCA and KLG’s conduct violated their professional duties of care and caused dam age to Team . 16 The jury also found Waypoint had not breached the Prim e Contract. 17 In the section of the jury verdict form dealing with dam ages, the jury was asked separately about the am ount of dam ages on the design-related acceleration claim s, each 7 R. Doc. 1. Id. at 5. 9 Id. at 5– 7. 10 Id. 11 R. Doc. 14. 12 R. Doc. 44. 13 R. Doc. 20 9 at 81; see also R. Doc. 217 at 82, R. Doc. 237 at 83. 14 R. Doc. 364. 15 Id. 16 Id. at 1, ¶ 1– 4. 17 Id. at 2, ¶ 6. 8 2 party’s percentage of responsibility, and the am ount of dam ages on Team ’s contract claim against Waypoint. In the question dealing with the am ount of dam ages on the designrelated acceleration claim s, the jury awarded Team $ 565,979.99 in dam ages. 18 In response to the question dealing with com parative fault, the jury assigned Waypoint and its agent responsibility for dam ages. 19 The jury assigned 30 % of the responsibility to HCA, 60 % to KLG, 5% to Waypoint, and 5% to Waypoint’s project m anager Steve Laski, who was not a party to the suit. 20 On March 19, 20 18, the Court entered judgm ent on the verdict against Defendants HCA and KLG for $ 50 9,381.99, representing 90 % of the total dam ages the jury awarded on the design-related acceleration claim s. 21 The Court entered judgm ent in favor of Defendant Waypoint on the breach of contract claim . 22 On April 2, 20 18, Team filed a m otion to am end, arguing the jury’s finding that Waypoint did not breach its contract with Team was irreconcilably in consistent with the jury’s assigning Waypoint an d its agent responsibility for dam ages. 23 On Septem ber 6, 20 18, the Court granted Team ’s m otion. 24 The Court found the jury verdict irreconcilably inconsistent, ordered “that the Court’s judgm ent for Defendant Waypoint on Plaintiff Team ’s breach of contract claim ” be vacated, an d ordered a new trial on this claim . 25 18 Id. at 3, ¶ 8. Id. at 4, ¶ 9. 20 Id. 21 R. Doc. 370 . 22 Id. 23 R. Doc. 372. 24 R. Doc. 420 . 25 Id. at 8– 10 . 19 3 On March 19, 20 19, the parties filed a pretrial order in connection with the secon d trial, stating again that “[t]his case is a jury case, and the jury trial is applicable to all aspects of the case.”26 On April 3, 20 19, nearly three years after Waypoint’s initial jury dem and an d a m ere 12 days before the trial date of April 15, 20 19, Team filed the in stant m otion. 27 Team invokes the jury waiver clause in the Prim e Contract and m oves to strike the jury from the second trial. 28 Waypoint opposes. 29 LEGAL STAN D ARD The Seventh Am en dm ent guarantees the right to trial by jury. 30 “[A]s the right of jury trial is fundam ental, courts indulge every reasonable presum ption against waiver.”31 Under Rule 39(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a party m akes a proper jury dem and, “[t]he trial on all issues so dem anded m ust be by jury unless the court, on m otion or on its own, finds that on som e or all of those issues there is no federal right to a jury trial.”32 Even when there is no jury trial right, under Rule 39(c)(2), “the court, on m otion or on its own m ay, with the parties' consent, try any issue by a jury whose verdict has the sam e effect as if a jury trial had been a m atter of right.”33 “The express consent of the parties to a nonadvisory jury is not required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c). If one party dem ands 26 R. Doc. 486 at 24. R. Doc. 50 2. 28 Id. 29 R. Doc. 520 . 30 U.S. CONST. am end. VII. 31 Aetna Ins. Co. v . Kennedy , 30 1 U.S. 389, 393 (1937) 32 F ED . R. CIV. P. 39(a)(2). 33 F ED . R. CIV. P. 39(c)(2). 27 4 a jury, the other does n ot object, and the court orders a jury trial, this will be regarded as [a jury] trial by consent.”34 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS Team argues that, because Waypoint knowingly and voluntarily waived its constitutional right to a jury trial by executing the Prim e Contract, its jury dem and is ineffective. 35 Waypoint does not argue that its waiver of its right to a jury trial was not knowing and voluntary. 36 Instead, Waypoint argues Team has effectively consented to trial by jury. In this case, Waypoint filed a jury dem and on May 20 , 20 16. 37 Team did not object, and the Court ordered a jury trial in its first Scheduling Order on August 31, 20 16. 38 The parties prepared for a jury trial, represented in their pretrial order that the case was a “jury case,”39 and proceeded to have their claim s tried before a jury. 40 The statem ent in the pretrial order is especially significant because, under Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pretrial order “controls the course of the action unless the court m odifies it,”41 and “[g]enerally, stipulations in a pretrial order bind the parties, absent m odification.”42 After the Court ordered a new trial on Team ’s claim against Waypoint for breach of the Prim e Contract, the parties again prepared for a jury trial and filed a pretrial order 34 Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772, 796 n.10 1 (5th Cir. 1999). R. Doc. 50 2-1. 36 R. Doc. 520 . 37 R. Doc. 14. 38 R. Doc. 44. 39 R. Doc. 20 9 at 81; see also R. Doc. 217 at 82, R. Doc. 237 at 83. 40 R. Docs. 347– 363. 41 F ED . R. CIV. P. 16(e). 42 In re El Paso Refinery , L P, 171 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Save Barton Creek Ass'n v. Federal Highw ay Adm in., 950 F.2d 1129, 1132 n. 3 (5th Cir.1992)). 35 5 stating this is a jury case. 43 Team did not m ove to strike the jury until 12 days before trial. 44 In light of the years Team waited before m oving to strike the jury dem and, the short tim e left before trial, Team ’s statem ent in the pretrial order for the upcom ing April 22 trial that this is a jury trial, and the prejudice to Waypoint that would result from enforcing the waiver on the eve of trial, the Court finds that Team has consented to a jury trial. 45 CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that Team Contractor, LLC’s Motion to Strike J ury be and hereby is D EN IED . 46 N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 8th d ay o f Ap ril, 2 0 19 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 43 R. Doc. 486 at 24. R. Doc. 50 2. 45 See Huntingofrd v . Pharm . Corp. of Am ., d/ b/ a PharMerica, No. 1:17-CV-1210 -RB-LF, 20 19 WL 1472319, at *5 (D.N.M. Apr. 3, 20 19) (collecting cases) (noting som e cases find significant “the am ount of tim e the m ovin g party waited to object to the jury dem and and how m uch tim e rem ain s before trial to be determ inative,” while others focus on “whether the non m ovin g party would be prejudiced by enforcin g the wavier at a late stage, or if changing to a bench trial would waste judicial resources.”); see also Bow ie v. Cheram ie Glob. Marine, L.L.C., No. CV 16-3464, 20 18 WL 347470 6, at *2 (E.D. La. J uly 19, 20 18 ) (finding parties consented to jury trial when defendant waited until twenty days before trial to challenge jury dem and); Macquarie Bank Ltd. v. Knickel, No. 4:0 8-CV-0 48 , 20 12 WL 129370 27, at *1 (D.N.D. Oct. 10 , 20 12) (findin g a party “relinquished its right to en force the jury waiver” when in “acted in a m an ner wholly inconsistent with the enforcem ent of the jury waiver provisions at issue”) (citin g RDO Fin. Servs. Co. v. Pow ell, 191 F. Supp. 2d 811, 814 (N.D. Tex. 20 0 2)). 46 R. Doc. 50 2. 44 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.
