Golden Nugget Lake Charles, L.L.C. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co.
2017 WL 892407
5th Cir.2017Background
- Golden Nugget (owner) contracted with W.G. Yates (general contractor) to build the Golden Nugget Lake Charles casino/hotel; the parties recorded a notice of contract and bonds in Calcasieu Parish.
- Project was occupied and a certificate of substantial completion was signed on December 1, 2014; Golden Nugget continued to withhold roughly $18.7 million alleging Yates breaches.
- Golden Nugget sued Yates in federal court (Nov. 25, 2015); Yates counterclaimed (Dec. 21, 2015) and stated it would file a LPWA lien; Yates recorded a lien statement on Dec. 23, 2015.
- Golden Nugget moved to dismiss Yates’s lien claim as untimely under La. Stat. § 9:4822; the district court dismissed with prejudice, concluding Yates missed the statutory filing period.
- Yates appealed; the Fifth Circuit considered whether the phrase “substantial completion of the work” in § 9:4822(B) refers to an event (the project’s completion/occupancy) or a filed document (a recorded notice), which determines when the 60-day filing clock starts.
Issues
| Issue | Golden Nugget's Argument | Yates's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “substantial completion of the work” in La. Rev. Stat. § 9:4822(B) is an event or a filed notice, i.e., what triggers the 60-day period to file a lien statement for a general contractor when a notice of contract is recorded | The phrase refers to an event (e.g., occupancy/certificate of substantial completion); once the project was substantially complete in Dec 2014, the 60-day period expired before Yates filed | The phrase refers to a filed document (a recorded notice of substantial completion); because Golden Nugget never filed such a notice, the 60-day period never began and Yates’s Dec. 23, 2015 lien was timely | The court held the statute refers to a filed notice: when a contract is recorded, the owner must file a notice of termination or notice of substantial completion to trigger the filing period; because no such notice was filed here, Yates’s lien remains valid and the dismissal is reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Whitaker Constr. Co., 439 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.) (interpreting LPWA filing triggers and holding recorded-contract situations require an owner filing to trigger claim period)
- Bernard Lumber Co. v. Lake Forest Construction Co., 572 So. 2d 178 (La. Ct. App.) (places onus on owner to file notice of termination when a notice of contract is recorded)
- Byron Montz, Inc. v. Conco Construction, Inc., 824 So. 2d 498 (La. Ct. App.) (treated filing date of certificate/notice as trigger for subcontractor lien period)
- Clark Constr. Co. v. Warren, 760 So. 2d 677 (La. Ct. App.) (used filing date of notice of substantial completion to assess lien timeliness)