Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

King Company, Ltd. v. Catastrophe Cleaning & Restoration Co., Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

June 24, 2015

KING COMPANY, LTD. PARTNERSHIP,
v.
CATASTROPHE CLEANING & RESTORATION CO., INC. SECTION

ORDER AND REASONS

STANWOOD R. DUVAL, Jr., District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) filed by King Company, Ltd. Partnership ("King") seeking judgment against Catastrophe Cleaning & Restoration Co., Inc. ("CATCO"). In essence the case presented concerns work performed for which plaintiff maintains it has not been properly compensated. Having reviewed the pleadings, memoranda, exhibits and the relevant law, the Court finds there are material questions of fact precluding summary judgment.

Standard for Motion for Summary Judgment

Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record "which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Stults v. Conoco, 76 F.3d 651 (5th Cir.1996), citing Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 912-13 (5th Cir.), quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56, its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. The nonmoving party must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir.1995).

"A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Pylant v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, 497 F.3d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 2007) quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment evidence must be "viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, with all factual inferences made in the nonmovant's favor." Bazan ex rel Bazan v. Hildago County, 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001), citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513.

[C]onclusory statements, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. The Court has no duty to search the record for material fact issues. Rather, the party opposing the summary judgment is required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate precisely how this evidence supports his claim.

RSR Corporation v. International Insurance Company, 612 F.3d 851, 857 (5th Cir. 2010).

Analysis

This suit arises out of construction work done for CATCO by King and CATCO's alleged failure to pay for work performed by King on the Ursuline Academy, Alterations & Additions to the Old Gymnasium project located at 2635 State Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 (the "Project"). At the heart of this dispute is the scope of the agreement between the parties and whether CATCO authorized and agreed to pay for certain work and materials provided by King. King maintains that there are no questions of fact. King contends that:

(1) CATCO entered into a time and materials ("T & M") agreement with King to begin work to complete a project already begun by another contractor in October of 2012;
(2) that it invoiced this work with detailed time sheets and work tickets which were signed and unauthorized by CATCO;
(3) that a contract signed in December of 2012 was for work already completed;
(4) that King continued to perform extra work beyond the scope of the December contract which was allegedly confirmed and acknowledge in email correspondence on a time and material basis;
(5) that CATCO has reneged on its promises and that CATCO owes King the principal amount of $114, 066.90, plus reasonable ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.