155 So. 3d 39
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Gibson was the next lowest bidder on a DOTD bridge-joint repair project after the apparent low bidder (TOPCOR) was disqualified for failing to timely prove disadvantaged-business status; DOTD initially readvertised and later named Lamplighter low bidder.
- DOTD later found Lamplighter affiliated with TOPCOR and declared Lamplighter ineligible; Lamplighter protested and produced documentation leading DOTD to reinstate Lamplighter as low bidder; DOTD awarded the contract to Lamplighter.
- Gibson sued for injunctive and declaratory relief (and mandamus), alleging Lamplighter’s bid was irregular and seeking award of the contract to Gibson; trial court issued TRO and later a preliminary injunction and mandamus (partly reversed on appeal as to mandamus).
- After appellate proceedings, DOTD ultimately awarded the contract to Gibson but Gibson’s claim for attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 38:2220.4 remained pending; trial court awarded Gibson $106,215 in fees and the DOTD appealed only the fee award.
- Central legal question: whether La. R.S. 38:2220.4 authorizes an award of attorney’s fees when a plaintiff did not pursue the specific civil-action procedure in R.S. 38:2220.2–.3 (notice to the attorney general) but obtained a court order declaring a public-bid-law violation via other proceedings (here, summary judgment/injunctive relief).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gibson) | Defendant's Argument (DOTD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 38:2220.4 require that the plaintiff first bring a civil action under R.S. 38:2220.2–.3 (including notice to the attorney general) | R.S. 38:2220.4 awards reasonable attorney’s fees to the successful plaintiff when the court issues an order declaring a violation; statute’s plain language contains no prerequisite tying fees exclusively to actions under 38:2220.2–.3 | Fees are available only if the plaintiff followed the special statutory procedure (R.S. 38:2220.2–.3), including notice to the attorney general; otherwise fees are unauthorized | The court held that 38:2220.4 does not require prior compliance with 38:2220.2–.3 as an absolute prerequisite; fees may be awarded where the court issues the required declaration and the plaintiff prevails |
| Whether the trial court’s finding that DOTD violated the Public Bid Law was sufficient to trigger 38:2220.4(A) and (B) | The trial-court order declaring a violation satisfied 38:2220.4(A); Gibson prevailed and so was entitled to fees under 38:2220.4(B) | DOTD did not dispute the violation finding but argued statutory prerequisites for fees were lacking | Court affirmed that the trial-court declaration met 38:2220.4(A) and authorized fees under 38:2220.4(B) |
| Whether DOTD waived procedural objections to Gibson’s request for fees by not pleading exceptions | Gibson argued DOTD failed to raise prematurity/procedural exceptions and thus waived them | DOTD relied on statutory construction, arguing substance controls regardless of waiver | Court noted DOTD did not object and thus waived procedural objections; alternatively reached merits and rejected DOTD’s statutory-construction argument |
| Whether appellee (Gibson) was entitled to additional fees for defending the appeal | Gibson sought supplemental fees for appellate work | DOTD implicitly opposed additional fee award | Court awarded Gibson an extra $1,500 for defending the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond B. Const. Co., Inc. v. Department of Transp. and Development, 845 So.2d 429 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (discusses award of attorney’s fees under La. R.S. 38:2220.4 in DOTD bid disputes)
- M.P.G. Const., Inc. v. Department of Transp. and Development, 878 So.2d 624 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2004) (addresses injunctive relief and issues surrounding attorney-fee claims in public-bid contexts)
- Tectrans, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation Bd., 695 F. Supp. 2d 313 (E.D. La. 2010) (federal district court held failure to notify the attorney general under R.S. 38:2220.3 precluded recovery of fees for a public-bid declaratory claim)