Team Contractors, L.L.C. et al v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. et al, No. 2:2016cv01131 - Document 77 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying Plaintiff's 53 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 2/13/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Team Contractors, L.L.C. et al v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. et al Doc. 77 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 for Partial Sum m ary J udgm ent against Defendant Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. (“Waypoint”). 1 Waypoint opposes Team ’s m otion. 2 At Plaintiff’s request, the Court held oral argum ent regarding Plaintiff’s m otion on J anuary 25, 20 17. 3 For the following reasons, Team ’s Motion for Partial Sum m ary J udgm ent is D EN IED . LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgm ent is appropriate only “if the m ovant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law.”4 “An issue is m aterial if its resolution could affect the outcom e of the action.”5 When assessing whether a m aterial factual dispute exists, the Court considers “all of the eviden ce in the record but refrains from m aking credibility determ inations or weighing the evidence.”6 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party. 7 There is no genuine issue of m aterial fact if, even viewing the evidence in the light m ost 1 R. Doc. 53 R. Doc. 59. 3 R. Doc. 72. 4 F ED . R. CIV. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 23 (1986). 5 DIRECTV Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 20 0 5). 6 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. N ationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 20 0 8); see also Reeves v . Sanderson Plum bing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 – 51 (20 0 0 ). 7 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com favorable to the nonm oving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonm oving party, thus entitling the m oving party to judgm ent as a m atter of law. 8 If the dispositive issue is on e on which the m oving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the m oving party “m ust com e forward with evidence which would ‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the eviden ce went uncontroverted at trial.’”9 If the m oving party fails to carry this burden, the m otion m ust be denied. If the m oving party successfully carries this burden, the burden of production then shifts to the nonm oving party to direct the Court’s attention to som ething in the pleadings or other evidence in the record setting forth specific facts sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of m aterial fact does indeed exist. 10 If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonm oving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the m oving party m ay satisfy its burden of production by either (1) subm itting affirm ative eviden ce that negates an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim , or (2) dem onstrating there is no evidence in the record to establish an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim . 11 When proceeding under the first option, if the nonm oving party cannot m uster sufficient eviden ce to dispute the m ovant’s contention that there are no disputed facts, a trial would be useless, and the m oving party is entitled 8 Sm ith v. Am edisy s, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v . Rally ’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263– 64 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Lease, 755 F. Supp. 948, 951 (D. Colo. 1991)). 10 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322– 24. 11 Id. at 331– 32 (Brennan, J ., dissentin g); see also St. Am ant v. Benoit, 80 6 F.2d 1294, 1297 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing J ustice Brennan’s statem ent of the sum m ary judgm ent standard in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 24 (1986), and requirin g the m ovants to subm it affirm ative evidence to negate an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim or, alternatively, dem onstrate the nonm ovant’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential elem ent); Fano v. O’N eill, 80 6 F.2d 1262, 1266 (citing J ustice Bren nan’s dissent in Celotex, and requiring the m ovant to m ake an affirm ative presentation to n egate the non m ovant’s claim s on sum m ary judgm ent); 10 A CHARLES ALAN W RIGHT, ARTHUR R. M ILLER & M ARY KAY KANE , F EDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE §2727.1 (20 16) (“Although the Court issued a five-to-four decision , the m ajority and dissent both agreed as to how the sum m ary-judgm ent burden of proof operates; they disagreed as to how the standard was applied to the facts of the case.” (internal citations om itted)). 9 2 to sum m ary judgm ent as a m atter of law. 12 When, however, the m ovant is proceeding under the second option and is seeking sum m ary judgm ent on the ground that the nonm ovant has no evidence to establish an essential elem ent of the claim , the nonm oving party m ay defeat a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent by “calling the Court’s attention to supporting eviden ce already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the m oving party.”13 Under either scenario, the burden then shifts back to the m ovant to dem onstrate the inadequacy of the evidence relied upon by the nonm ovant. 14 If the m ovant m eets this burden, “the burden of production shifts [back again] to the nonm oving party, who m ust either (1) rehabilitate the evidence attacked in the m oving party’s papers, (2) produce additional eviden ce showing the existence of a genuin e issue for trial as provided in Rule 56(e), or (3) subm it an affidavit explaining why further discovery is necessary as provided in Rule 56(f).”15 “Sum m ary judgm ent should be granted if the nonm oving party fails to respond in one or m ore of these ways, or if, after the nonm oving party responds, the court determ ines that the m oving party has m et its ultim ate burden of persuading the court that there is no genuine issue of m aterial fact for trial.”16 “[U]nsubstantiated assertions are not com petent sum m ary judgm ent evidence. The party opposing sum m ary judgm ent is required to identify specific eviden ce in the record and to articulate the precise m anner in which that evidence supports the claim . ‘Rule 56 does not im pose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to sum m ary judgm ent.’”17 12 First N ational Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 28 8 – 89 (198 0 ); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249– 50 (1986). 13 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33. 14 Id. 15 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33, 333 n.3. 16 Id.; see also First N ational Bank of Arizona, 391 U.S at 289. 17 Ragas v. Tenn . Gas Pipelin e Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Forsy th v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) and quotin g Skotak v. Tenn eco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 90 9, 915– 16 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1992)). 3 AN ALYSIS In its m otion for partial sum m ary judgm ent, Team argues it is uncontested that Waypoint owes it $ 1,0 23,514.0 9 and that Waypoint should be forced to pay Team im m ediately. 18 Waypoin t argues that Team has not fulfilled the requirem ents set forth by the Prim e Contract (“Contract”) governing the parties’ relationship which requires that (1) the architect m ust issue a final Certificate of Paym ent; and (2) Team m ust provide a release form reasonably acceptable by the Owner of liens and claim s by the Contractor and by each of its subcontractors on behalf of which paym ent is requested. 19 In response, Team argues that under the Louisiana Private Works Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes section 9:480 1 seq., the period in which Team or any of its subcontractors or vendors could have filed a lien against the Project expired over ten m onths ago and therefore the requirem ent that Team subm it a release form accepted by Waypoint of all liens and claim s by it and its subcontractors is invalid for lack of legal cause. 20 The Court finds that there are m aterial facts in dispute an d as a result Team ’s Motion for Partial Summ ary J udgm ent is D EN IED . CON CLU SION Accordingly; IT IS ORD ERED that Team Contractor, LLC’s Motion for Partial Sum m ary J udgm ent 21 against Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C. is D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 13 th d ay o f Fe bru ary, 2 0 17. _______________________ ________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 18 See R. Doc. 53-1, at 1. R. Doc. 59, at 4. 20 R. Doc. 53-1, at 2. 21 R. Doc. 53. 19 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.
