Noatex Corp. v. King Construction of Houston, L.L.C.
732 F.3d 479
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- This case involves Mississippi’s Stop Notice statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-181, and related lien procedures.
- Parties include Noatex, King Construction, Auto Parts Manufacturing Mississippi (APMM), and the State of Mississippi which defended the statute.
- King provided materials and labor to Noatex for a Guntown, MS project; Noatex alleged money owed for prior work.
- King’s Stop Notice claimed $260,410.15; APMM allegedly owed Noatex $179,707.40, with funds bound in court.
- The district court ruled the Stop Notice statute facially unconstitutional; Noatex challenged related relief and bond orders; this Court consolidated and affirmed the rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Mississippi’s Stop Notice statute facially unconstitutional due process. | State/Noatex: statute deprives property without adequate pre-deprivation safeguards. | State argues safeguards exist in Mississippi law and statutory context. | Yes; statute facially unconstitutional for lack of due-process safeguards. |
| May King dismiss its appeal under Rule 42.1. | State/Noatex contend dismissal would be unwarranted or prejudicial. | King sought withdrawal unopposed; waiver arguments apply. | No; King’s motion to withdraw denied. |
| Whether Noatex is entitled to further relief beyond nullifying the stop notice. | Noatex seeks damages and fees based on declaratory judgment. | No final rights determination on the funds; relief inappropriate. | No abuse of discretion; further relief denied. |
| Whether the district court properly stayed Noatex’s appeal bond motion. | Stay impedes Noatex’s ability to obtain an appeal bond. | Court appropriately stayed pending resolution of the constitutional issue. | No abuse of discretion; stay affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. (1972)) (due process safeguards and pre-deprivation process emphasized)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. (1976)) (balancing test for procedural due process rights)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. (1987)) (facial challenges require showing no set of circumstances would permit validity)
- N. Ga. Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601 (U.S. (1975)) (detailed pre-deprivation safeguards evaluation)
- Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (U.S. (1974)) (bond posting as a factor in due process evaluation)
- Fuentes v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (U.S. (1991)) (concept of extraordinary situations and state monopoly on force)
- Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (U.S. (1991)) (due process in encumbrance and attachment contexts)