WALLACE C. DRENNAN, INC. Vs. LATOYA CANTRELL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, JOSH HARTLEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, AND THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

WALLACE C. DRENNAN, INC. * VERSUS * NO. 2023-CA-0193 COURT OF APPEAL LATOYA CANTRELL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, JOSH HARTLEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, AND THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2022-08718, DIVISION “B-5” Honorable Rachael Johnson ****** Judge Karen K. Herman ****** On Application for Rehearing (Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Karen K. Herman) Loretta Gallaher Mince FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170-4600 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT Bernard Joseph Blair, II Corwin M. St. Raymond Donesia D. Turner CITY ATTORNEY 1300 Perdido Street City Hall - Room 5E03 New Orleans, LA 70112 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; JUDGMENT AMENDED DECEMBER 7, 2023 KKH RLB PAB Plaintiff-Appellant, Wallace C. Drennan, Inc., (“WCD”) seeks a rehearing of this Court’s October 25, 2023 opinion that reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s December 27, 2022 judgment, which partially denied WCD’s alternative writ of mandamus and declined to award interest for the failure of the Defendant-Appellee, City of New Orleans (“the City”), to timely pay six invoices pursuant to La. R.S. 38:2191. We grant the rehearing to amend this Court’s previous opinion to find that the City had forty-five days from April 27, 2020, to pay Invoice No. 23662-2.B.2.2. In its application for rehearing, WCD maintains that this Court erroneously found a discrepancy in the testimony of Ingrid Raboteau (“Raboteau”), the invoice manager for the Department of Public Works, with respect to Invoice No. 236622.B.2.2. Upon further review of the record, we find merit in this assertion. The inconsistencies in Raboteau’s testimony which we referenced in our opinion appear to be in connection with a different invoice and not Invoice No. 23662- 1 2.B.2.2. The evidence thus indicates that the City, not WCD, provided the template containing the bid item error for Invoice No. 23662-2.B.2.2. Accordingly, the application for rehearing is granted and we amend this Court’s previous opinion to find that the City had forty-five days from April 27, 2020, to pay Invoice No. 23662-2.B.2.2. APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; JUDGMENT AMENDED 2

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.