Opinion
2024-CA-0081 2024-CA-0082
11-12-2024
C.D.W. SERVICES, LLC v. NEW BRIDGE PARTNERS, LLC C.D.W. SERVICES, LLC v. NEW BRIDGE PARTNERS, LLC
Frank A. Milanese FRANK A. MILANESE, PLC Lloyd N. Shields Elizabeth L. Gordon IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART &MOORE, 11c COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Charles Ferrier Zimmer, II Daniel E. Davillier Jonathan D. Lewis DAVILLIER LAW GROUP, LLC Sean A. Blondell SEAN BLONDELL LAW FIRM, LLC COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2017-06082, DIVISION "D" Honorable Monique E. Barial, Judge
Frank A. Milanese FRANK A. MILANESE, PLC Lloyd N. Shields Elizabeth L. Gordon IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART &MOORE, 11c COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
Charles Ferrier Zimmer, II Daniel E. Davillier Jonathan D. Lewis DAVILLIER LAW GROUP, LLC Sean A. Blondell SEAN BLONDELL LAW FIRM, LLC COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
(Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Rachael D. Johnson)
DYSART, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS BRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS
Rachael D. Johnson, Judge
RLB
RML
Appellant, Defendant and Plaintiff-in Reconvention New Bridge Partners, LLC ("New Bridge"), seeks review of the November 14, 2023, district court judgment, rendered in conformity with a jury verdict, against Appellee, Plaintiff and Defendant-in-Reconvention C.D.W. Services, LLC ("CDW"). Finding that the jury's verdict was ambiguous, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand this matter for a new trial.
Facts and Procedural History
The instant appeal involves breach of contract claims between New Bridge- an owner of property ("the Property") located on Magazine Street in New Orleans- and a general contractor, C.D.W. New Bridge contracted with CDW to construct a residential building with a recording studio and leasable commercial tenant space on the Property. CDW commenced its work on the Property; however, New Bridge later terminated the contract after only a portion of the project was complete.
CDW filed suit against New Bridge, alleging bad faith breach of contract and damages. New Bridge answered the suit and filed a reconventional demand against CDW, countering that CDW breached the contract. Thereafter, New Bridge filed a supplemental and amending petition naming architect James Dart and his insurer as third party defendants. Mr. Dart filed a reconventional demand for damages against New Bridge, and a third-party demand against defendant Damien Serauskas, who was a mechanical engineer on the project.
At the close of a ten-day trial, the jury returned a verdict and the district court read the jury interrogatories with the jury's responses into the record:
As to question one: 'Do you find that New Bridge Partners, LLC herein after commonly referred to as NBP, breached the terms and conditions of the construction contract with C.D.W. Services, LLC?'
Answer: 'no.'
Directions on the form indicate, if you answer no, please proceed to question five.
Question number five: 'Do you find that C.D.W. Services, LLC breached the terms and conditions of the construction contract with New Bridge Partners, LLC involved in this litigation?'
Answer: 'Yes.'
If you answered yes, please proceed to the next question.
Question six: 'Please provide the amount of money that would fairly and reasonably compensate New Bridge Partners for any damages it incurred resulting from the breach by C.D.W.'
'Total $290,000 dollars.'
Please proceed to the next question.
Number seven: 'what percentage of fault, if any, do you find by a preponderance of the evidence to be a legal cause of any damages attributable to the following:
C.D.W. Services, LLC? 38 percent.
New Bridge Partners, LLC? 29 percent.
James Dark? 30 percent.
Paul LaGrange? 1 percent.
Thomas DeRose? 2 percent.
Others? zero.'
Number eight: 'was C.D.W. Services, LLC's conduct in the provision of professional construction services unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or deceitful?' Answer: 'Yes.'
If you answered yes, please proceed to the next question.
Number nine: 'Was C.D.W's conduct in the provision of professional construction services substantially injurious to New Bridge Partners?'
Answer: 'No.'
If you answered no, please refrain from answering any more questions.
Mr. LaGrange was a consultant hired by New Bridge who advised on the corrections needed to repair CDW's work. Mr. DeRose was a builder involved in the project.
On November 14, 2024, the district court rendered judgment in favor op New Bridge, providing in pertinent part:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant and Plaintiff-in-Reconvention, New Bridge Partners, LLC, for damages the total amount of two hundred and ninety thousand dollars ($290,000.00) subject to the allocation, or percentage, of fault attributed by the jury as follows:
CDW: 38%
New Bridge: 29%
James Dark [sic]: 30%
Paul LaGrange: 1.0%
Thomas DeRose: 2.0%
Others: 0.0%
TOTAL= 100.00%
The district court decreed that CDW's conduct in providing "professional construction services" was: deemed "unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or deceitful, as the terms of art relate to the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act" (the Act"), and was not found to be substantially injurious under the Act. Lastly, the district court entered judgment in favor of New Bridge and against CDW as to CDW's claim for breach of contract against New Bridge.
New Bridge timely appealed the district court's judgment. The sole issue presented for review is whether the district court improperly reduced the jury's verdict in violation of La. Code Civ. Proc. arts. 1812 and 1916.
OPINION
New Bridge avers that the district court's judgment "usurps the letter and intent of the jury's verdict" because the district court interpreted the verdict in such a way that it deprived New Bridge of $180,000 in damages, awarded by the jury. New Bridge avers that the jury determined CDW's "conduct in the provision of professional construction services unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or deceitful." The jurors further determined that CDW's breach caused $290,000 in damages to New Bridge, before it considered other sources of damage. Yet, the district court deemed the $290,000 value as the jury's determination of all of New Bridge's, despite the express language of Interrogatory No. 6 making clear that this value was only as to CDW. New Bridge argues that the district court violated Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 1812 and 1916, which provide that a court must enter a judgment that conforms to the jury's answers when a jury returns a special verdict. Thus, it requests that this Court either modify the judgment or reverse with instructions to issue a final judgment complying with the jury's verdict. We agree with New Bridge in part.
The record reflects that the district court attempted to render a judgment in conformity with the jury's verdict. However, because a comprehensible jury verdict was not reached in this matter, the district court was precluded from entering a valid judgment.
As New Bridge notes, when a jury returns a special verdict accompanied by interrogatories, the judgment must correspond to the verdict of the jury. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1812(D). Additionally, following a jury trial, "the court shall prepare and sign a judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury[.]" La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1916(A). The Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure makes clear that district courts must enter judgments conforming to jury verdicts.
As previously noted, the jury determined that CDW's "conduct in the provision of professional construction services unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or deceitful" and that CDW's breach caused $290,000 in damages to New Bridge, in response to interrogatories eight and six, respectively. The jury-in response to interrogatory seven- allocated fault to those it deemed to be the legal cause of New Bridge's damages: C.D.W. Services, LLC- 38%; New Bridge Partners, LLC-29%; James Dart -30%; Paul LaGrange -1%; and Thomas DeRose- 2%.
Here, the jury's answers lead to no clear result. It is unclear whether the jury intended that CDW bear the sole responsibility for paying $290,000 in damages, as indicated in response to interrogatory 6. It is also unclear whether the jury intended to award New Bridge only $290,000 in damages. Further, it is unclear whether the jury's $290,000 assessment of damages for CDW's breach was intended by the jury to be subject to its allocation of fault in response to interrogatory seven, as the district court interpreted. The interrogatories did not ask the jury to identify whether, outside of CDW, additional damages were due to New Bridge from another source. The record evidences that jury interrogatories were unclear and lacked specificity. This made it impossible for the jurors to reach a verdict.
It is evident that the district court's judgment could not and does not adequately comport with the conclusions that the jury reached. The record reflects that the district court attempted to resolve the aforementioned discrepancies by splicing together portions of the jury verdict and concluding that the jury intended that $290,000 represented the total amount of damages to be awarded to New Bridge; and this award was to be offset and/or divided among New Bridge and Messrs. Dart, LaGrange and DeRose. The resulting judgment, however, fails to accurately reflect even the discernable portions of the jury's findings.
"[T]here is no provision for a jury's verdict to be considered 'advisory,' thereby allowing the trial court to interpret the jury's verdict or substitute its own findings of fact." Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 04-2095, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/7/07), 949 So.2d 1266, 1272-73. The district court's attempt at interpreting the jury's verdict and developing its own judgment was a substantive err. Therefore, we vacate the district court's judgment. Moreover, because the jury's verdict is not discernible, we remand this matter for a new trial. See La. Code of Civ. Proc, article 2164.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the November 14,2023 district court judgment is vacated, and this matter is remanded for a new trial.
JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL
LOBRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the portion of the judgment that incorrectly allocated fault and reduced the award of damages, and I would render judgment in favor of New Bridge and against CDW, in the amount of $290,000.1 agree with New Bridge, that the district court erred in failing to enter a judgment conforming to the jury verdict. On my review of the jury's answers to the questions on the verdict form, I find that the jury awarded New Bridge $290,000. The jury found that CDW caused New Bridge $290,000 in damages. The district court erroneously treated the $290,000 of damages specifically caused by CDW as the total damages sustained by New Bridge. In rendering its judgment, the district court mistakenly allocated comparative fault to the award, reducing it to 38% of $290,000, which the jury did not do.
The jury found New Bridge did not breach its contractual obligations to CDW when New Bridge tenninated CDW for breach of contract. Further, the jury found that CDW did breach its contractual obligations to New Bridge and caused $290,000 in damages. Moreover, the jury found that CDW's professional construction services were unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or deceitful. In the context of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act ("LUTPA"), however, the jury found CDW's conduct had not been "substantially injurious" to New Bridge. According to the jury interrogatory instructions, this ended the jury's LUTPA analysis.
Even so, the jury found CDW's "conduct in the provision of professional construction services unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or deceitful." It determined that CDW's breach caused $290,000 in damages to New Bridge, before it considered other sources of damage. The district court erroneously treated the $290,000 value as the jury's determination of all damages incurred by New Bridge, despite the express language of Interrogatory No. 6 clearly attributing this value to the damages CDW alone caused to New Bridge. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 1812 and 1916 expressly state that when a jury returns a special verdict, the court must enter a judgment that conforms to the jury's answers. The judgment, however, usurped the letter and intent of the jury verdict and deprived New Bridge of $180,000 in damages granted by the jury. I would reverse the erroneous reduction of damages, and I would render judgment against CDW in compliance with the jury's verdict.
DYSART, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
I dissent from the majority's decision to vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial.
The first sentence of the judgment states: "This matter having been tried and submitted to the jury, and the jury having returned a unanimous verdict, rendered the following as per the jury interrogatories attached." (emphasis added). However, the answers to the interrogatories presented to the jury do not establish with certainty the amount of damages owed by CDW to New Bridge. The trial court's final judgment also does not clearly state the amount owed and, as written, is subject to different interpretations by the parties when considering the wording of the jury's answers to interrogatories.
La. C.C.P. article 1918(A) states:
A final judgment in accordance with Article 1841 shall be identified as such by appropriate language; shall be signed and dated; and shall, in its decree, identify the name of the party in whose favor the relief is awarded, the name of the party against whom the relief is awarded, and the relief that is awarded. If appealed, a final judgment that does not contain the appropriate decretal language shall be remanded to the
trial court, which shall amend the judgment in accordance with Article 1951 within the time set by the appellate court.
"A valid judgment must be precise, definite, and certain." Daneco, L.L.C, v. Just Gators, Inc., 2023-0642, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/23/24), 386 So.3d 1086, 1087, citing Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002-0045 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/02), 836 So.2d 364, 365. "A final appealable judgment must contain decretal language and must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied." Id., citing Advanced Leveling &Concrete Solutions v. The Lathan Co., Inc., 2017-1250 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/18), 268 So.3d 1044, 1046 (en banc). "These determinations should be evident from the language of the judgment without reference to other documents in the record." Id., Laird, 836 So.2d at 366.
"A lack of proper language in a judgment that is otherwise a final judgment does not divest the appellate court of jurisdiction. Instead, the final judgment shall be corrected to include proper decretal language by an amendment in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 1951. See La. C.C.P. art. 1918, Comments-2021, Comment (a)." Daneco, L.L.C, v. Just Gators, Inc., 2023-0642, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1/23/24), 386 So.3d 1086, 1087; See also Gulfsouth Credit, LLC v. Conway, 2022-0499 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/4/22), 354 So.3d 731.
Because the judgment appealed from is not clear as to the precise amount for which CDW is cast in judgment, I would remand this matter for the limited purpose of instructing the trial court to sign an amended final judgment that is precise, definite, and certain, and contains proper decretal language. See La. C.C.P. arts. 1918(A), 1951, and 2088(A)(12).