195 So. 3d 598
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- RTA issued three IFBs (2014-04, 2014-25, 2015-06) for renovation of the Carrollton Facility; Landis was sole bidder on IFB #1 (cancelled for being over budget) and IFB #2 (initially within budget but later cancelled).
- Landis filed suit under La. R.S. 38:2220.1 on May 8, 2015 seeking: injunction to block re-advertisement, writ of mandamus to award the IFB #2 contract (and a change order for delay costs), declaratory judgment that RTA violated Public Bid Law, attorney’s fees, and alternatively bid-preparation damages.
- RTA raised an exception of prematurity, arguing Landis failed to exhaust the IFB’s protest procedure before filing suit.
- District court sustained the prematurity exception and denied Landis’s requested relief.
- After appeal was filed, RTA awarded the IFB #2 contract to Landis; on appeal the court found some claims moot, reversed prematurity as to Landis’s declaratory-judgment claim under La. R.S. 38:2220.1–.4, dismissed the mandamus claim for a change order for failure to state a cause of action, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Landis’s declaratory-judgment claim under La. R.S. 38:2220.1–.4 was premature for failing to exhaust the IFB protest procedure | Landis argued it sued as a private claimant under 38:2220.1 (to deter Public Bid Law violations), not as an "aggrieved person" subject to the IFB protest rule | RTA argued Landis agreed to the IFB protest procedure by bidding and thus must exhaust it before suing | Court held prematurity exception was wrongly applied to the 38:2220.1 declaratory-judgment claim; reversed prematurity dismissal and remanded |
| Whether mandamus to force RTA to award the IFB #2 contract or injunctive relief were actionable after contract award | Landis sought writs/relief to obtain the contract or enjoin re-advertisement | RTA argued administrative remedies and, later, contract award mooted those claims | Court dismissed those claims as moot after RTA awarded the contract to Landis |
| Whether mandamus seeking a change order (compensation for delay) stated a cause of action | Landis alleged delay likely increased its costs and sought a mandamus compelling a change order under La. R.S. 38:2212(M)(1) | RTA noted change orders require mutual written agreement and alleged no change order was presented or denied | Court found the petition lacked facts showing a ministerial duty (no submitted/denied change order); dismissed mandamus claim for failure to state a cause of action |
| Whether attorney’s-fee claim under 38:2220.4 survives prematurity analysis | Landis sought attorney’s fees tied to a successful declaratory claim under 38:2220.4 | RTA tied exhaustion requirement to IFB terms | Because declaratory claim survives, the court reversed prematurity as to attorney-fee claim and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitney Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. Poydras Ctr. Associates, 468 So.2d 1246 (La. Ct. App. 1985) (appellate courts will not issue advisory opinions; mootness doctrine)
- Williamson v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of Jefferson, 888 So.2d 782 (La. 2004) (exception of prematurity tests ripeness)
- Steeg v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 329 So.2d 719 (La. 1976) (prematurity premised on unmet prerequisite condition)
- Girouard v. State Through Department of Education, 694 So.2d 1153 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997) (administrative exhaustion as precondition to judicial action)
- Jefferson Door Co., Inc. v. Cragmar Construction, L.L.C., 81 So.3d 1001 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (prematurity evaluated from facts at filing)
- Burandt v. Pendleton Memorial Methodist Hospital, 123 So.3d 236 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for prematurity when legal question is involved)
- Newman Marchive Partnership, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 979 So.2d 1262 (La. 2008) (definition of ministerial duty for mandamus)
- Moreno v. Entergy Corp., 64 So.3d 761 (La. 2011) (no-cause-of-action exception tests legal sufficiency of petition)
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (standard for determining legal sufficiency of pleadings)