Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Kocurek v. Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

May 5, 2017


          FOOTE JUDGE.



         Currently pending is the plaintiffs' motion to compel (Rec. Doc. 50). The motion is opposed. Considering the evidence, the law, and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons fully explained below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.


         Plaintiffs Kathy Kocurek and Le Chat Interiors, Inc. (collectively “Le Chat”) have brought a breach of contract claim against Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools LLC (“Frank's”) and a tortious interference with contract claim against the former President and CEO of Frank's, Gary Luquette. On March 1');">14');">4');">4');">4, 201');">13, Le Chat and Frank's executed a Letter of Engagement pursuant to which Le Chat was to perform interior design services for an office building that was being constructed by Frank's. [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, p. 2');">p. 2]. The Letter was executed on behalf of Frank's by Keith Mosing who was the President and CEO of Frank's at the time. [Id.] The Letter confirmed an “agreement for interior design services to be performed by Le Chat . . . to complete the project at Frank's . . .” [Id.] The terms contained in the Letter were as follows:

The design concept and implementation shall include developing a color scheme, sourcing furniture, spatial planning, fixtures, wall coverings, fabrics, and materials; design custom furniture and built ins; design window treatments where applicable; selection of materials for flooring, counters and cabinetry, hardware, and presentation of selections that represent the best choices for your space.
For the professional services described, the designer's compensation shall be $1');">100.00 per hour billed on a monthly basis.

         In 201');">15, Frank's corporate leadership changed and Luquette became the President and CEO. On March 1');">12, 201');">15, Luquette terminated the services provided by Le Chat prior to completion of the project. [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, p. 5]. Gensler Architecture, Design & Planning, P.C. (“Gensler”) provided Frank's with a “Key Findings Report” dated March 9, 201');">15 in which Gensler proposed recommendations for the interior design of the project. [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, pp. 1');">14');">4');">4');">43- 1');">153]. On March 23, 201');">15, Luquette, on behalf of Frank's, signed a contract with Gensler that had an effective date of February 27, 201');">15. [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, pp. 1');">154');">4');">4');">4-1');">159].[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id="FN1');">1">1');">1] The Subject Line provides “Agreement for Interior Architectural Services.” [Rec. Doc. 50-4');">4');">4');">4, p. 1');">154');">4');">4');">4]. The Gensler “Basic Services” are described as follows:

[D]esign services for all interiors beyond the core on levels one through four, including office and workstations space, meeting spaces, common areas, and storage; and signs required by code, and coordination of design services for the following building systems or components currently being provided by other consultants: mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, and lighting engineering.

[Id. p. 1');">155].

         Gensler was to be compensated for Basic Services in a lump sum (which is redacted) that was broken down into Phase One and Two Architectural Services, Phase Three Architectural Services and Furniture Selection and Specifications. [Id. p. 1');">158]. In addition, there was a cost plus arrangement (also redacted) for reimbursable expenses and other consultant fees invoiced through Gensler. [Id.].

         Gensler issued Work Authorizations which are contained in Exhibit C to the plaintiffs' motion. [Rec. Doc. 50-5].[2] The Work Authorizations contain a myriad of services and materials provided to, and ostensibly paid for by, Frank's. The Work Authorizations are signed by representatives of Gensler and Frank's and contain pricing information in each. The services described in the Work Authorizations far exceed those set forth in the Letter Agreement provided by Le Chat.

         Exhibit C also contains internal reports from Frank's personnel reviewing the project, reporting of site visits, and making recommendations. [Rec. Doc. 50-5, Conf. Def. pp. 2');">p. 24');">4');">4');">42- 24');">4');">4');">47]. It is clear from these documents that there are multiple contractors/vendors in a variety of areas that do not include work done by LeChat and would not have ever been under Le Chat's direction.

         By this motion, the plaintiffs seek two types of information. First, they want detailed, “specific itemizations of payments for interior design work on the Project that include: a) the identity of the person paid; b) the amount paid; c) payment dates: and d) and itemized description of the work performed, i.e. payment for furniture, rugs, draperies, etc.” [Rec. Doc. 50-1');">1, p. 2');">p. 2]. In another part of the motion, the plaintiffs request “invoices and payment for interior design work actually performed to complete the Frank's office Project and invoices and payments for furniture and other interior design furnishings actually purchased for use in the ...

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.