United States v. Tandem Roofing, LLC
2:23-cv-02293
| E.D. La. | Nov 15, 2023Background
- Exposed Roof Design, LLC performed roofing work on a Naval Air Station project and alleges Tandem Roofing, LLC owes $215,625 under a subcontract and change order.
- E&F Construction was the prime contractor; E&F obtained a Miller Act payment bond issued by Markel and SureTec.
- Exposed originally sued Tandem, E&F, Markel, and SureTec asserting breach of contract, quantum meruit, Miller Act and prompt-payment claims; later amended to withdraw the Miller Act and Federal Prompt Payment Act claims against Tandem and to add a Texas Prompt Payment Act claim.
- Tandem moved to dismiss the Miller Act and Federal Prompt Payment claims and to sever and transfer the state-law claims against it to the Northern District of Texas based on a mandatory forum-selection clause in the subcontract specifying Dallas County, Texas.
- The Court held Tandem’s dismissal motion moot (claims withdrawn) and denied severance and transfer under the Fifth Circuit’s Rolls Royce framework, concluding judicial economy and the private interests of non‑signatory defendants outweighed the forum clause’s force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Miller Act & Federal Prompt Payment claims against Tandem | Exposed asserted statutory claims arising from nonpayment | Tandem argued Miller Act claims belong only against sureties/prime; Federal Prompt Payment has no private right | Moot — Exposed withdrew those claims in amended complaint |
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause (transfer/severance) | Keeping all claims here promotes judicial economy; claims are interrelated | Agreement’s mandatory Dallas-County clause requires severance and transfer of Tandem-related claims | Clause is valid and favors transfer, but not dispositive |
| Whether Rolls Royce analysis requires severance & transfer | Severance would cause duplicative discovery, prejudice non-signatories, and undermine settlement; keep single case here | First Rolls Royce prong (signatories’ private interests) mandates transfer; any inconvenience can be mitigated by coordinated procedures | Denied severance/transfer — judicial economy & non-signatories’ private interests outweigh clause |
| Section 1404(a) private/public interest factors | Local interest, witnesses, and Project location (Belle Chasse, LA) weigh against transfer | Preselected forum and contract choice (Texas) weigh for transfer | Private factors largely neutral or favor Louisiana; public interest/judicial economy weigh against transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. Of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum-selection clauses shift weight in transfer analysis)
- In re Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d 671 (5th Cir. 2014) (three-prong framework for severance/transfer when some parties are non-signatories to forum clause)
- Weber v. PACT XPP Techs., AG, 811 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 2016) (analysis of forum-clause scope and transfer factors)
- Barnett v. DynCorp Int'l, L.L.C., 831 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2016) (plaintiff's forum choice merits little weight where contract selects forum)
- Acevedo v. Allsup’s Convenience Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2010) (district court discretion over joinder and severance)
- Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 1994) (broad discretion to sever claims)