# A D B Commercial Construction (Louisiana) L L C v. St Charles Housing L P

> District Court, W.D. Louisiana · October 19, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10195877

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** October 19, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10195877

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

A D B COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION CASE NO. 2:22-CV-01083
(LOUISIANA) L L C

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

ST CHARLES HOUSING L P MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM RULING

Before the court is a breach of contract suit filed by ADB Commercial Construction
(Louisiana) LLC against St. Charles Housing LP, with counterclaim by St. Charles. Docs.
1, 6. The matter came before the court for a one-day bench trial on October 10, 2023. The
undersigned now issues this ruling.
I.
BACKGROUND

This suit arises from repair work done by ADB at St. Charles Place Apartments in
Lake Charles, Louisiana, following Hurricane Laura. St. Charles Housing LP retained
ADB to perform repair work on the 148-unit complex and restore it to as-was condition.
The parties agreed to compensation on a cost plus ten percent basis. Work commenced in
the fall of 2021. There was no comprehensive scope of work and the project was instead
staged incrementally. Work was also complicated by the absence of previous plans for the
complex, the amount of storm damage, additional damage from termites and a freeze in
spring of 2021, permitting issues, and the owner’s decision to move water heaters and
convert from gas to electric.

St. Charles employee Jennifer Duenas initially served as project manager, working
with ADB construction manager Ray Clark. Invoices were submitted by ADB on the first
and fifteenth of every month and generally paid in short order. In January 2022 Ms. Duenas
hired Jasmin Tran to serve as an on-site assistant. At Ms. Duenas’s request, Ms. Tran began
auditing ADB’s invoices and identified some discrepancies on wood counts. Ms. Tran also
communicated directly with managers at Apartment Corp (corporate parent of St. Charles),

accusing ADB of overbilling and indicating that she could renegotiate pricing. A meeting
took place on March 24, 2022, between Ms. Duenas, Ms. Tran, and representatives from
Apartment Corp. There Ms. Tran laid out her findings and Apartment Corp decided to
terminate ADB from the project, after which Ms. Duenas resigned.
ADB filed suit in this court on April 25, 2022, alleging that it was owed $696,640.96

in outstanding invoices for work performed up to the time of termination. Doc. 1.
Accordingly, it raised claims for breach of contract or, in the alternative, equitable estoppel,
detrimental reliance, unjust enrichment, and/or quantum meruit under Louisiana law. Id. It
also made a claim for attorney fees under Louisiana’s open account statute, La. R.S.
9:2781. St. Charles then countersued for breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. Doc. 6.

It alleged that ADB had overcharged for its work and that the work was substandard and
incomplete, necessitating significant rework by St. Charles after ADB’s termination. Id.
The matter came before the undersigned for a one-day bench trial on October 10,
2023. The court received the trial deposition of Jennifer Duenas and heard live testimony
from Ray Clark, Jasmin Tran, and David Olson, who succeeded Ms. Duenas at Apartment
Corp. The court also received substantial documentary evidence from the parties. Upon

consideration of the evidence and testimony, the undersigned now issues this ruling.
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Evidence Adduced at Trial
1. Ray Clark
Mr. Clark testified that he is a construction manager for ADB with over 50 years of
experience in the industry. Tr., p. 3. He has handled over 200 jobs as a project manager
and has worked for ADB for 11 years. Id. at 4. He acted as ADB’s project manager for the
St. Charles Place Apartments project in 2021 and 2022, first meeting with Jennifer Duenas
on site to submit a bid. Id. at 4–5. He described the condition of the complex as “in a lot of
disarray,” with buildings partially demolished and major freeze damage to exposed
plumbing after the demolition. Id. at 6.
The initial scope offered by St. Charles was for roof replacement. Id. at 7. This work
was complicated by uncertainty on replacement of the “doghouses,” decorative units off

the main façade, which had sustained substantial storm damage. Id. Otherwise, pricing
requests came incrementally as St. Charles made decisions about what it would repair and
how it would allocate insurance funds. Id. at 8–9. Efforts to define the scope of work were
also limited by the fact that St. Charles did not have original structural drawings for the
complex. Id. at 8.
The roof was replaced and paid for on a lump sum basis but all other work was done
on a unit price basis, with ten percent markup. Id. at 11; see, e.g., doc. 23, atts. 1 & 2

(electrical and plumbing quotes). Pricing was determined by the board foot of lumber,
inclusive of labor, material, and additional demolition. Tr., p. 18. Accuracy of the quotes
was complicated by the need for code upgrades on some aspects of the project as well as
the inability to uncover all preexisting termite damage across the sixteen buildings of the
complex. Id. at 15–16, 18. Additionally, St. Charles decided to convert the units from gas
to electric and to change water heater locations. Id. at 19. Mr. Clark also maintained that

St. Charles never made a final decision as to other aspects of the project, such as finishes,
doors, mold testing, and removal of existing sheetrock in apartments that had not already
been gutted. Id.
Nevertheless, Mr. Clark testified, ADB proceeded efficiently with its work and
generally obtained prompt authorization and payment from St. Charles through Jennifer

Duenas. Id. at 19–21. At the same time, ADB understood that it was only committed to
finish the work that was authorized. Id. at 22. Invoices were submitted twice a month, on
the first and fifteenth, and ADB only billed for completed work. Id. at 21. It received
payment within two to three weeks until the last two months or so of the project. Id. at 22.
The slowdown in payment coincided with the arrival of Jasmin Tran in December

2021. Ms. Tran was hired to assist Ms. Duenas on the project and met with Mr. Clark every
day. Id. at 24. Mr. Clark described their relationship as “good until she tried to take the
project over.” Id. Mr. Clark stated that Ms. Tran had attempted to renegotiate pricing with
him but that he had refused. He also referenced an email written by Ms. Tran to Ms. Duenas
and Apartment Corp managers in February 2022. The email began as a response to Ms.
Duenas’s question about which units at the complex were to be designated as ADA-

compliant. Doc. 23, att. 4. After providing this information, Ms. Tran stated:
As Jennifer knows, I have carried out a personal physical inspection
on all 121 units, the laundry and the leasing offices. I have emailed 121
individual surveys to Jennifer.
During this survey I noted and am making my notes available to
anyone who would like to see them as they are helpful in moving forward
with the project and controlling the invoicing received by ADB.
May I respectfully make the following suggestions:
We have an in house meeting with regards to my findings. (Zoom is
suggested).
We may be in a position to renegotiate the electrical and plumbing
and cleaning contracts: post the air tests carried out last month.
Based on my experience of being a licensed contractor in the State of
California for 30 years (now retired- but can activate my licence) my
knowledge and experience can save in the region of 100k PLUS on these
(quasi) contracts. A complete rewire (electrical) and a repipe in buildings 7-
16 are not necessary. Why? Because the results of the salvage survey indicate
this. (Further John Boling walked some of the survey to confirm my
findings).
I walked some of the building with Ray to point out the unnecessary
work and encouraged him that his billing should reflect my findings.
There are significant savings to be made here, now that a thorough
survey has been carried out personally and is reliable.
Jennifer has been prudent in making sure that I check any in coming
bids, for gouging (contractors getting a little ambitious [greedy].
Jennifer has been adamant that I check every past invoice for over
billing, which I am sorry to report has been the case on this Lake Charles job.
Having said that, I have noted in the files letters from Heinrich Engineering,
expressing that they checked ADB’s counts. It has been disappointing to
Jennifer and I that the counts do not match, I believe Jennifer has a plan on
how to address this.
. . . .
If you have any further questions I am available and on site Mon-
Saturday 7-8pm (when Ray leaves). The auditing has taken up most of my
time. And by the way, the auditing has been fruitful for us.

Doc. 23, att. 4.
ADB was terminated from the project by phone on March 24, 2022, following the
meeting suggested by Ms. Tran. Tr., pp. 26, 32. Before that point, Mr. Clark testified, he

had met with Ms. Tran on site to discuss double-billing on a roofing contract and some
inaccurate counts for units of lumber. Id. at 26. As a result of this meeting and a subsequent
review ADB issued credit invoices to St. Charles on April 11, 2022, in the amounts of
$8,698.00 for an overpayment on corridor billing, $20,522.00 for the miscount, and
$16,322.00 for the roof billing, for a total of $45,542.00. Tr., pp. 27–31; see doc. 23, atts.
5–7 (credit invoices). Mr. Clark admitted that he would not have undertaken this audit

without Ms. Tran’s request. Tr., p. 45. He also admitted that he had no indication St.
Charles had approved the amount of the credit. Id. at 47.
At the time of termination, Mr. Clark testified, ADB was actively working on the
scopes of work it had been authorized to perform. Tr., p. 33. ADB ceased work immediately
upon termination and Mr. Clark sent a letter to Todd and Marc Menowitz, principals of

Apartment Corp, on April 15, 2022. Id. at 33–34; see doc. 23, att. 8. The letter outlined
several categories of outstanding invoices, totaling $702,197.56 less an adjustment of
$45,542.00 as described above, for a total of $656,655.56. Doc. 23, att. 8. Mr. Clark, on
behalf of ADB, asserted that St. Charles was in default for this amount and demanded
immediate payment. Id. He also demanded payment within fifteen days on four additional

invoices (Nos. 1187, 1188, 1190, and 1191), totaling $39,985.40, for work requested and
performed through the date of termination. Id.
Attached to the letter was a Job Summary prepared by Mr. Clark, outlining the status
of all invoices submitted on the project. Doc. 23, att. 9. According to this summary, the
total amount billed on the project is $2,427,744.61. Id. Given the adjustment amount of
$45,542.00 on the credit invoices, Mr. Clark contends, the error rate on billing is less than

two percent. Id. at 9; Tr., pp. 37–38. Additionally, with no further payments made by St.
Charles since that demand, the total amount outstanding is $696,640.96 spread out over
104 invoices. Tr., p. 38. All of the open invoices were introduced into evidence at trial. Id.
at 39; see doc. 23, atts. 10–113.
Of the in-progress work, Mr. Clark testified that ADB was about 70 percent
complete with work under Invoices 1190 and 1191 (new lines to pop-off valves in buildings

7-16 and work required by city in all buildings for installation of additional drain pans).
Tr., pp. 39–40; doc. 23, atts. 10 & 11. For Invoices 1187 and 1188, which related to
plumbing rough-ins on specified units, he testified that the work was about 60 percent done
at the time of termination. Tr., p. 41; doc. 23, atts. 12 & 13. He also testified that only about
25 percent of total electrical work on the project was complete at termination and ADB did

not invoice for any work it had not completed. Tr., pp. 41–42. He was unaware of any
problems with the electrical work at termination and had not been made aware of any since
then. Id. at 42. Likewise, he testified that plumbing was only 25 to 30 percent complete at
termination and ADB had not invoiced for any work it did not do. Id. at 42–43. He was
unaware of any problems with the plumbing at termination and had not been made aware

of any since then. Id. at 43.
As for the roofing, Mr. Clark testified that ADB had completed all such work on the
project. Id. At termination the laundry building roof was having problems with shingles
popping out of a mansard. Id. This occurred while ADB was repairing additional termite
damage in the building. Id. at 43–44. Mr. Clark testified that ADB would have fixed the
problem through attrition at no additional charge if it had remained on the project. Id. at

44. He denied that the entire roof needed to be replaced. Id. at 44. He also maintained that
he had not been alerted to any additional deficiencies with the work since termination. Id.
He admitted, however, that he had not been on site since termination and would have no
knowledge of any repair work. Id. at 47–48.
2. Jennifer Duenas
Jennifer Duenas testified via trial deposition. Doc. 23, att. 114. At the time of ADB’s

termination she worked as director of development and construction for Apartment Corp
and had been in that position since February 2021. Id. at 73–74. She has 19 years of
experience in the field and has served as an expert witness on real estate and construction.
Id. at 71–72. She hired ADB for the St. Charles Place project, first accepting its bid for
roof work after the previous contractor was fired. Id. at 74–78. She worked with ADB to

define scopes of work and negotiate for each trade. Id. at 11–14. She testified that this
approach, as opposed to a single lump sum contract, resulted in savings of about $4 million
for ownership. Id. at 13–14.
Ms. Duenas represented St. Charles in negotiations with ADB but had to seek
approval from Apartment Corp ownership before proceeding with major trade items. Id. at

18. She dealt primarily with Ray Clark on this project and would receive invoices directly
from ADB. Id. at 18–19. Before Ms. Tran came on as her assistant, Ms. Duenas would
audit ADB’s billing by walking the site with Mr. Clark and by cross-checking invoices
against each other. Id. at 20–21. If she could not be on site at the time, she would have Mr.
Clark send her pictures of the work. Id. She would then attach a cover sheet to each invoice
documenting her review and the amount to be paid, and submit these to ownership for

ultimate approval. Id. at 22.
Over the course of the project, until her resignation, Ms. Duenas visited the site
seven to ten times for weeklong visits. Id. at 80–81. About three months after ADB started,
she requested that Apartment Corp hire someone to assist her at the site. Id. at 23. She
testified that Ms. Tran was intended to be her “boots on the ground,” because Ms. Duenas
“was running over eight or 12 projects nationwide” and it was “hard to keep up with

everything when you’re constantly flying around.” Id. She further testified that Ms. Tran
would have authority to negotiate on certain items, if issues came up on site, but that
ultimate approval and negotiation authority was to remain with Ms. Duenas. Id. at 23–24.
Ms. Duenas offered the job to Ms. Tran, who was the mother of a good friend and
was looking for a way back into the construction field after several years away. Id. at 63–

65. At Ms. Duenas’s behest, Ms. Tran began checking past invoices to make sure Ms.
Duenas had not missed anything. Id. at 87–88. Nevertheless, Ms. Duenas was “extremely
. . . in shock” when Ms. Tran sent her February 2022 email raising issues with ADB to
Apartment Corp management. Id. at 65. She stated that there was no need for Ms. Tran to
go over her head to ownership, and that she was left with the impression that Ms. Tran was

trying to take her job. Id. Ms. Duenas testified:
And I called her and told her, I said, look, you’re making it very clear
you want my job. You want it, take it, but you’re not ready for it yet. Let’s
first get you up to speed on the job you’re doing because you haven’t been
doing this since the ‘80s. Slow your roll, it’s only been a month. Relax.
Breathe. It’s okay. I’ll build you up to that point because I don’t want to be
in this seat forever. I had other plans. So let’s build you up, let’s train you,
let’s get you used to the way it works.

Id. at 66. Ms. Duenas then elaborated on her criticisms of Ms. Tran’s issues with ADB,
explaining that Ms. Tran’s perspective was too limited and that she had unrealistic
expectations on pricing. Id. at 66–70.
Ms. Duenas, Ms. Tran, and Apartment Corp representatives met for several hours
in Miami on March 24, 2022, to discuss the issues raised by Ms. Tran in her February 2022
email. Ms. Duenas defended ADB’s work and herself against accusations by Ms. Tran. Id.
at 46–48. Ms. Duenas vehemently opposed the decision to terminate ADB, noting that
ADB had just passed plumbing and electrical inspection at the site and was continuing to
save Apartment Corp money:

On top of it, we went from a $12,000,000 budget that was projected
based on the insurance carrier and the bank and the previous bids, we’re
pacing [$8 million], we’d be shooting ourselves in the foot. That doesn’t
make any sense. He just passed rough inspections. We’re getting ready to
start closing up walls. That’s it. We’re going to start flying now. It did not
make any sense. I said, look, at the minimum, let’s trade – if you don’t want
to give them any work, let’s finish the work that we have contracted him on
because you’re saving money and he’s performing. I don’t understand what
the issue is.
And when they said they were – then they terminated him and they
weren’t going to pay him, I couldn’t stomach that. The guy did his work. He
passed inspections. We got it at [] below cost compared to any other bidders
that we got. And when I say I beat Ray down on the pricing, I beat Ray down
on the pricing.
. . . .
And on top of it, we got a better – and, excuse me, when I say we, I’m
referring to the property ownership. We got a better end product than we
originally sought. We got all new plumbing, all new electrical. We got almost
everything reframed. We got all new windows. We got new roofing. We got
new mansards. We were going to get new stairs. We ended up with a larger
scope. . . .
So we ended up in a better position than we started with with the prior
company. This is why I was so upset that they wanted to terminate. And I
tried to ask them, please don’t do this, like it does not make any sense.

Id. at 46–48. Accordingly, Ms. Duenas resigned a few days after Apartment Corp
terminated ADB. Id. at 24–27.
Ms. Duenas also disagreed with ownership’s decision not to compensate ADB for
its work, noting that ADB had self-funded the work to keep the project going “because we
promised that the paperwork would catch up” and that she was not aware of any glaring
deficiencies in the work up to that point. Id. at 27, 70. She admitted, however, that she had
not been to the St. Charles site or spoken with Ms. Tran since her resignation. Id. at 93–94.
Ms. Duenas has worked with ADB in her subsequent positions, contracting with them for
disaster restoration work on another apartment complex and then borrowing a
superintendent to assist on a job that had fallen behind. Id.
3. Jasmin Tran

Ms. Tran testified that she officially began working for Apartment Corp/St. Charles
on January 4, 2022, though she first visited the site at Ms. Duenas’s invitation shortly
before Christmas 2021. Tr., pp. 52, 98. Ms. Tran held a California contractor’s license from
1985 to 2006 but left the construction industry after a back injury. Id. at 97–98. She had
been running a business in the United Kingdom but had sold it three years ago and knew

Ms. Duenas as a friend of her daughter’s. Id. Ms. Duenas told Ms. Tran that she was under
stress with her job in Lake Charles and Ms. Tran offered to take a look. Id. At Ms. Duenas’s
invitation Ms. Tran began reviewing invoices and walking through the buildings,
comparing the counts. Id. at 98–99. She noted some discrepancies and raised them with
Ms. Duenas. Id. at 98–100. Ms. Duenas called her superiors at Apartment Corp and then
offered Ms. Tran a job, asking her to be on site and audit the invoices previously paid to

ADB. Id. at 100–01.
Ms. Tran acknowledged that she never had approval authority over ADB’s invoices,
and that final authority instead rested with Ms. Duenas. Id. at 53–54. She remained on site
in Lake Charles, auditing invoices and walking the property with Mr. Clark and other ADB
representatives. Id. at 101–03. When the issue of overbilling was first raised, she testified,
she had a meeting with Mr. Clark, Ms. Duenas, and ADB owner Guy Barrios at which they

agreed that the overbilling was approximately $150,000 to $153,000. Id. at 54–55, 102–
03. She never signed any documentation approving the overbilling amount as $20,522. Id.
at 103.
Ms. Tran admitted that the March 2022 meeting was called at her behest and that
she was in favor of terminating ADB while Ms. Duenas was not. Id. at 102–04. Later,

however, she maintained that she did not know anything about the decision to terminate
until the time came to inform ADB and she offered her phone. Id. at 111. After ADB’s
termination and Ms. Duenas’s resignation, Ms. Tran was promoted to project manager. Id.
at 105. She testified that it was a “nightmare” completing the project from that point and
that she continued to uncover partially or incorrectly completed plumbing and electrical

work. Id. at 105–06. She elaborated on several such instances, necessitating the hiring of
additional subcontractors, and introduced invoices from these subcontractors. Id. at 105–
10. She admitted, however, that other than some air-conditioning closets ADB had not
closed up walls. Id. at 112. According to Ms. Tran, the project was finally completed in
April 2023 and the complex is now at 85 percent occupancy. Id. at 110.

4. David Olson
David Olson succeeded Jennifer Duenas as director of development and
construction for Apartment Corp. Tr., p. 58. He has decades of experience in construction
and holds a California contractor’s license. Id. at 68. He started his role with Apartment
Corp in July 2022 and never had any interaction with ADB or Ms. Duenas. Id. He identified
all subcontractor invoices for rough-in, whether defective or incomplete, as remediation

for ADB’s work. Id. at 60. Through Mr. Olson’s testimony defendant introduced dozens
of post-termination invoices from roofing, plumbing, and electrical contractors with certain
amounts designated as repair/rework necessitated by ADB. Mr. Olson never compared
these invoices against ADB’s invoices, however. Id. at 60–61. He also testified that he
understood the primary reason for ADB’s dismissal was overbilling rather than issues with

its work. Id. at 70–71. He admitted that he was unaware of how much work was remaining
on ADB’s contract and change orders. Id. at 96.
B. Law & Application
A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies the substantive law of the
forum state. Cates v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 928 F.2d 679, 687 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Erie

Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)). Under Louisiana law every construction
contract carries the implication that the work of the builder will be performed “in a good
workmanlike manner, free from defects in either material or workmanship.” Salard v. Jim
Walter Homes, Inc, 563 So.2d 1327, 1330 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990). A contractor must
also perform in accordance with contract plans and specifications. O & M Const., Inc. v.
State, Div. of Admin., 576 So.2d 1030, 1039 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991). Where there is

substantial performance on a construction contract, the contractor is entitled to recover the
contract price reduced by the amount necessary to complete the work and repair any
defects. West v. Collins, 648 So.2d 500, 501 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994); accord Herlitz
Const. Co., Inc. v. Clegg Concrete, Inc., 378 So.2d 1002 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979) (If
remedial work is required to complete a project in accordance with specifications, the cost
of this work must be borne by the party at fault). A party seeking to reduce the contract

price by an amount to perfect or complete work bears the burden of proving the necessity
of such perfection or completion and its cost. O & M Const., Inc., 576 So.2d at 1039.
No expert testimony was introduced on the quality of ADB’s work. The court finds
little reason to credit the testimony of Ms. Tran. She went over the head of her supervisor
after one month on the site to claim ownership of the project despite not having worked in

the industry for at least fifteen years. Ms. Tran now attempts to deny all responsibility for
ADB’s termination, even though it was her email that led to the March 2022 meeting with
Apartment Corp managers and her phone that was used to call ADB to fire them from the
job at the end of that meeting.
Ms. Duenas, on the other hand, had greater experience in the field and greater

familiarity with the project. She disputed any insinuation that ADB was intentionally
overbilling and had no reason to believe its work was less than workmanlike. She has also
continued to use ADB on other projects. Mr. Clark and Ms. Duenas both testified to
complications created by the disarray of the site and the incremental staging of the project,
providing a sound explanation for the overbilling and any other inefficiencies. Finally, the
court found Mr. Olson to be sincere and suitably experienced. He was reliant on Ms. Tran’s

input, however, and did not come to the project until four months after ADB’s termination.
Additionally, he did not compare the invoices for ADB’s completed work with the claimed
remediation/rework. He was admittedly unaware of the amount of work remaining on the
scopes provided for ADB. Accordingly, any opinion on the quality or completion of ADB’s
work that can be derived from his testimony is of little persuasive value.
For these reasons, the court finds that St. Charles breached its contract by failing to

pay the outstanding invoices. It is not entitled to a reduction for any of the claimed
plumbing, carpentry, or electrical rework/remediation. ADB presented credible testimony
that its plumbing and electrical work on the project were largely incomplete, with the areas
still exposed for further work, and St. Charles fails to adequately differentiate between
remediation and completion. There was also insufficient testimony on the completion of

any carpentry work. St. Charles is entitled to a credit for roof repairs. There is no dispute
that ADB had completed all roofing work on the project and St. Charles presented
competent evidence of leaks necessitating repairs. St. Charles has not carried its burden as
far as showing that the entire roof will need to be replaced, however. Accordingly,
ADB is owed $696,640.96 in outstanding invoices for work performed up to the

time of termination less the amounts presented in Defense Exhibits 3 through 3.5 [doc. 14,
atts. 6–11] from Futrell Roofing1, in Defense Exhibits 14, 14.1, 14.2, and 14.4 [doc. 14,

1 On the first of these invoices over $48,000 is billed and defendant claimed $6,600 as compensable on a summary
submitted to chambers. But the highlighted portion on the second page indicates, and Mr. Olson testified, that only
$4,000 was for ADB rework. Tr., p. 77; doc. 24, att. 6, p. 2.
atts. 49, 50, 51, and 53] from Manlyman Handyman’, and in Defense Exhibit 2.5 [doc. 24,
att. 5] from Delta Development for roof repair as well as the amounts billed by JRA
Remodelations in Defense Exhibits 6 and 6.7 [doc. 14, atts. 32 & 39] for drywall repair
from roof leaks. The total for these repair credits is $26,762.00. ADB is thus owed the
principal sum of $669,878.96 plus costs and judicial interest in accordance with the law.
ADB has also proven its demand for the sums presented in the invoices and the
accuracy thereof by a preponderance of the evidence. St. Charles is entitled to a credit for
less than five percent of the amount demanded due to rework and remediation necessitated
by apparent issues with the roofing. It never contested ADB’s invoices, however, and has
not shown a basis for its refusal to pay on the vast majority of the amount due. ADB is
therefore entitled to reasonable attorney fees under La. R.S. 9:2781.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 19th day of October, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 From Invoice 1303, Defense Exhibit 14 [doc. 24, att. 49] the court deducts $700 for plumbing repairs. Invoice 1319,
Defense Exhibit 14.5 [doc. 24, att. 54] purportedly contains costs for roof repairs for pipe penetration. The court is
unable to connect this to substandard roof work, however, and makes no credit to St. Charles in association with the
invoice.

Page 16 of 16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10195877. Public record. Not legal advice.