In this case, subcontractor Cal’s A/C & Electric sued general contractor Famous Construction and its surety Capitol under the Miller Act for unpaid sums on a federal construction project at a VA medical center, also seeking penalties and attorney’s fees under Louisiana state law (La.R.S. § 9:2784). The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the Miller Act preempted the state-law claims for penalties and fees based on precedents like F.D. Rich Co. v. U.S. The court denied the motion, holding that the 1988 amendments to the Prompt Payment Act, specifically 31 U.S.C.A. § 3905(j), expressly preserve subcontractors’ rights to pursue such remedies under state law on federal projects and thereby overrule the prior preemption rulings. The decision rested on the legislative history and text of the amendments, which cross-reference the Miller Act and aim to strengthen contractor remedies without requiring amendment of the Miller Act itself.
This case involves a breach of contract claim brought by Muirfield entities against Pitts and Red Oak over a letter agreement to dissolve joint partnerships (RLP and Ark-La), buy out interests in RLP, and impose conservation servitudes on land in Louisiana. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), (6), and (7), arguing lack of diversity jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and failure to join the partnerships as indispensable parties under Rule 19. The court denied the motion, holding that diversity jurisdiction was proper because the principal places of business of the key entities were in Virginia and Louisiana respectively. It further ruled that the partnerships were not indispensable parties, as all general partners were already before the court and could effectuate any relief ordered, with their interests adequately represented in the contract dispute.
The case involves a medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act arising from the alleged failure by U.S. employees and independent contractor Dr. Emmanuel Witherspoon to timely diagnose brain tumors in minor Christina Romero at an Army hospital, resulting in her blindness and other injuries. After the plaintiffs settled their claims against the United States, Witherspoon filed a third-party demand seeking contribution or indemnity from the U.S. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment or dismissal, ruling that under Louisiana law on solidary liability the settlement released the U.S. from any contribution obligation and that tort indemnity was unavailable because any liability of Witherspoon would be based on his own actual fault rather than technical or vicarious responsibility.
This case concerns a third-party demand by the Bienville Parish Police Jury against the United States Postal Service and the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking indemnity or contribution after a head-on collision on a parish road between a postal employee and a private driver. The underlying suit alleged negligence by the postal driver and defects in the road's design, construction, and maintenance by the Parish, which settled with the plaintiff and then pursued the federal defendants. The court denied summary judgment on the contribution claim but granted it on the indemnity claim, holding that Louisiana law does not permit tort indemnity here because the Parish's potential liability arose from its own active role in maintaining the road rather than merely passive or derivative fault.
This case involves a Miller Act lawsuit brought by subcontractor Cal’s A/C against general contractor Famous Construction Corp. in the Western District of Louisiana, seeking payment for work on a federal construction project at a VA hospital in Pineville, Louisiana. Famous moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or to transfer the case to Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), citing a forum-selection clause in its form subcontract that designated exclusive venue in Travis County, Texas. The court denied the motions, holding that 40 U.S.C. § 270b(b) mandates exclusive, non-waivable venue in the federal district where the project is located. The reasoning centered on the Miller Act’s text requiring suits to be brought “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed and not elsewhere,” its protective purpose for subcontractors, and the conclusion that the contract clause was ambiguous, contrary to federal public policy, and therefore void.
The case concerned a motion by the Rapides Parish School Board for a declaratory judgment on the validity of an amendment to Article 8, § 13 of the Louisiana Constitution and Act 973 of 1995, which authorized creation of the North Rapides Independent School District in Wards 9, 10, and 11. The court granted the motion and held the provisions invalid. It reasoned that the proposed district split would obstruct ongoing desegregation of a former dual school system by creating racially identifiable schools, violating federal constitutional requirements that state law must yield under the Supremacy Clause when it hinders elimination of de jure segregation.