867 F. Supp. 2d 824
M.D. La.2012Background
- Plaintiff Mike Gines purchased a D.R. Horton home in 2006 with HVAC designed by Reliant-TX and installed by Reliant-LA, allegedly inadequate to maintain temperature.
- Gines demanded repairs on July 9, 2007; multiple repair attempts in 2007 failed to resolve the cooling deficiencies.
- Gines filed suit in state court August 22, 2008; case removed to this court and amended to include a putative class of Forest Ridge homeowners.
- In 2011, the court dismissed DR Horton from NHWA claims; NHWA claims against Reliant-LA were dismissed; applicability to Reliant-TX was uncertain.
- After DR Horton’s dismissal, Reliant-LA and Reliant-TX were allowed new motions; remaining claims against each Reliant were three: Article 2762 workmanship, Article 2769 contractual non-compliance, and tort claims under Articles 2315/2316.
- Reliant-TX argued lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service; the court examined jurisdiction, service, and sufficiency of claims despite a default entry against Reliant-TX.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reliant-TX is subject to personal jurisdiction | Gines argues Reliant-TX’s contacts can be imputed from Reliant-LA under Hargrave. | Reliant-TX has no Louisiana contacts; its president’s affidavit shows no activities in Louisiana. | No personal jurisdiction over Reliant-TX; dismiss Reliant-TX. |
| Whether Gines’ Article 2762 claim alleges the required ‘ruin’ | Gines asserts defective workmanship should be actionable under 2762. | 2762 requires actual physical ruin; no physical damage shown. | Gines’ Article 2762 claim dismissed; no ruin as defined. |
| Whether Gines’ Article 2769 non-compliance claim lies against Reliant | Gines contends Reliant breached contract under 2769. | No contractual privity; Washington v. Degelos limits 2769 liability to those with contractual relationship. | Article 2769 claim dismissed; no contractual relationship between Gines and Reliant. |
| Whether Gines’ tort claim under Articles 2315/2316 is timely | Gines argues ten-year prescriptive period (Article 3500) applies, not one-year prescriptive period. | Reliant argues prescription accrues in July 2007; one-year period expired before suit; 3500 not applicable to Reliant as non-architect/contractor. | Tort claim prescribed under Article 3492; Article 3500 not applicable to Reliant; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp., 710 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir.1983) (imputing subsidiary contacts requires substantial control beyond ownership)
- Asarco, Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912 F.2d 784 (5th Cir.1990) (minimum contacts and fair play analysis for in-forum jurisdiction)
- Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir.1975) (default judgments do not admit all facts; defendant can challenge sufficiency)
- Johnston v. Multidata Systems Int'l Corp., 523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir.2008) (jurisdictional allegations assumed true unless controverted)
- Davis v. Royal-Globe Ins. Co., 242 So.2d 839 (La. 1971) (ruin definition requiring actual physical destruction under Article 2322)
- Washington v. Degelos, 312 So.2d 918 (La.App.4th Cir.1975) (contractual privity required for Article 2769 liability; third-party beneficiaries not applicable)
- McKee, State v. Robert E. McKee, Inc., 584 So.2d 1205 (La.App.2d Cir.1991) (ten-year prescription does not apply to subcontractors lacking privity)
- Freudensprung v. Offshore Technical Services, Inc., 379 F.3d 327 (5th Cir.2004) (Hargrave factors examined to determine corporate separateness)