308 So.3d 724
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Stevens Construction contracted with St. Tammany Fire Protection District No. 1 to build a new fire station; contract price ~$2.85M; architect was a joint venture of Domain Architecture and Greenleaf Lawson.
- Architect had authority to review and certify pay applications and withheld portions of multiple pay applications (Nos. 9, 13, 14, 15, 16) citing third‑party claims, incomplete work, liquidated damages, and the contract’s termination clause.
- Fire District issued a stop‑work direction and subsequently terminated Stevens for cause in August/September 2018; architect provided a certification‑of‑cause letter supporting termination.
- Stevens filed for injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus under La. R.S. 38:2191 seeking payment; preliminary injunction was denied and that ruling was unsuccessfully appealed.
- Domain (and the joint venture) sought and were permitted to intervene to defend their performance and certification actions; trial court denied Stevens’ mandamus claim and dismissed the petition.
- On appeal Stevens primarily contested (1) the propriety of Domain’s intervention and (2) the denial of mandamus compelling payment; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention by architect (Domain) | Stevens: Domain lacked contractual privity and no justiciable interest; intervention improper | Domain/Fire District: Architect’s conduct and certifications were central to Stevens’ claims; intervention allowed | Court: Intervention proper — Domain had justiciable interest and connexity; adding JV parties after hearing did not prejudice Stevens |
| Mandamus for progressive payments (La. R.S. 38:2191) | Stevens: Withheld amounts were due; statute mandates payment absent any discretion; withholding was arbitrary/unreasonable | Fire District/Architect: Contract conferred discretion (architect may withhold for specified reasons); withholdings tied to third‑party claims, incomplete work, liquidated damages, termination, and retainage | Court: No mandamus — contract allowed withholding; withheld amounts were not “due and payable,” and the Fire District was not arbitrary or without reasonable cause |
| Withholding after termination / final payment claims | Stevens: Pay Apps 14–16 became due despite termination; retainage cap argument under La. R.S. 38:2248 | Fire District/Architect: Contract bars further payments until work finished after termination; final payment conditions (lien waivers, substantial completion, surety consent) unmet | Court: Withholdings lawful — contract conditions for final/retainage payments not satisfied; no ministerial duty to pay |
| Liquidated damages and third‑party claims as bases to withhold | Stevens: Liquidated damages cannot justify withholding when contract otherwise met (relies on Woodrow Wilson) | Fire District/Architect: General Conditions expressly permit withholding for liquidated damages and third‑party claims where facts support it | Court: Distinguished Woodrow Wilson; here contract provisions applied and supported withholdings — not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoag v. State, 889 So.2d 1019 (La. 2004) (defines ministerial duty and limits mandamus where discretion exists)
- Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. St. Charles Parish, 202 So.3d 535 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2016) (mandamus unavailable where contract leaves discretion to public entity)
- Quality Design & Construction, Inc. v. City of Gonzales, 146 So.3d 567 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2014) (statutory interpretation of La. R.S. 38:2191 reviewed de novo when money judgment issue presented)
- Woodrow Wilson Construction LLC v. Orleans Parish School Board, 245 So.3d 1 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2018) (addressed liquidated damages and withholding; distinguished on facts)
- State through Morrell v. City of New Orleans through Landrieu, 234 So.3d 1071 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2017) (mandamus standards; plaintiff must show arbitrariness or lack of reasonable cause)
- Riddle v. Simmons, 589 So.2d 89 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1991) (joint venture principles; factors for finding a joint venture)
- Mike M. Marcello, Inc. v. Louisiana Gaming Control Board, 903 So.2d 545 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005) (justiciable interest/connexity test for intervention)