421 So.3d 255
La. Ct. App.2025Background
- TSM owned property and hired Custom as general contractor; Coastal contracted with Custom to install a fire sprinkler system for $56,925; Coastal performed the work but invoice #29469 for $13,559.28 remained unpaid.
- Coastal filed a Statement of Claim/privilege (lien) and sent notices/demand for payment; Coastal later sued Custom and TSM under the Private Works Act, for misapplication penalties and attorney’s fees.
- Coastal moved for summary judgment asserting a timely lien, unpaid subcontractor invoice, misapplication under La. R.S. 9:4856, and entitlement to attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 9:4856 and 9:2781.
- Custom failed to timely respond to requests for admission; sought to withdraw deemed admissions shortly before a summary judgment hearing and filed other procedural motions (exceptions, motion for judgment on the pleadings).
- Trial court granted Coastal’s motion and cast Custom solidarily with TSM for $13,559.28 plus interest, lien costs, statutory misapplication penalties, and attorney’s fees; Custom appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coastal) | Defendant's Argument (Custom) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying Custom’s motion to withdraw matters deemed admitted | Requests for admission were properly served and remained unanswered; deemed admissions were valid and supported summary judgment | Late responses were filed (but long after service); withdrawal should be allowed because admissions were controverted by verified answer/reconventional demand | Denial affirmed — court did not abuse discretion given dilatory timing and lack of timely opposition evidence |
| 2) Whether trial court erred in denying Custom’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after Coastal withdrew its amended petition | Coastal’s original petition remained operative; withdrawal of the amended petition did not dispose of the original claim | Coastal’s withdrawal of the amended petition eliminated the operative pleading and justified judgment on the pleadings | Denial affirmed — amended petition preserved original allegations; Custom had not answered the operative pleading |
| 3) Whether Coastal met its burden on summary judgment given competing pleadings and late-filed materials | Coastal produced admissible documents showing contract, unpaid invoice, timely lien, and demand; burden shifted to Custom to produce evidence of genuine issue | Custom argued trial court should consider late-filed pleadings/admissions and that its verified answer/reconventional demand created factual disputes | Grant affirmed — Coastal met its burden; Custom failed to present admissible documentary evidence in compliance with La. C.C.P. art. 966 to create a genuine issue |
| 4) Whether the trial court misapplied La. C.C.P. art. 966 by not considering late-filed documents already on record | Coastal maintained that Article 966 limits what may be relied upon and requires specific listing/copies when referencing previously filed documents | Custom contended the court should have considered previously filed verified pleadings and late admissions without the stricter Article 966 formalities | Held for Coastal — Article 966’s filing/listing requirements apply; Custom failed to comply, so the trial court properly refused to rely on those materials |
Key Cases Cited
- Indulge Island Grill, L.L.C. v. Island Grill, L.L.C., 220 So.3d 154 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2017) (discusses when deemed admissions may be controverted by other pleadings and cautions against granting summary judgment solely on deemed admissions)
- Hill v. TMR Expl., Inc., 353 So.3d 823 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2022) (competing discovery responses can create genuine factual issues that preclude summary judgment)
- Duckworth v. Curole, 389 So.3d 832 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2024) (late-filed denials may be treated as motions to withdraw admissions; trial court has discretion)
- Apache Corp. v. Talen’s Marine & Fuel, LLC, 242 So.3d 619 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2018) (trial court’s discretion in allowing withdrawal of admissions)
- Byron Montz, Inc. v. Conco Const. Inc., 824 So.2d 498 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (explains subcontractor rights under Louisiana Private Works Act)
- Hoskins v. Caplis, 431 So.2d 846 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1983) (criticizes granting summary judgment based solely on deemed admissions when the facts are plainly disputed)