AMOS L. MAZZANT, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Luke Bissell d/b/a JB&L Utility Contractor's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendant Legends Underground Utilities, Inc. (Dkt. #45). Having considered the motion and relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be
In June 2017, Delta County, Texas hired Defendant Legends Underground Utilities, Inc. ("Legends") to complete the Mount Joy and Pecan Gap Water System Improvement Project—a project calling for the installation of approximately 17,000 feet of 4-inch water line. Legends used a large track hoe with a 3-foot bucket to dig a 3-foot wide trench for 4-inch water line. As it turns out, Legends' use of such equipment caused problems for Delta County, its citizens, and the Delta County Municipal Utility District ("MUD"). Many citizens complained of damage to their property, crops, and farmland and reached out to Matt Ingram, the General Manager of the Delta County MUD, to inform him of their concern that Legends had hit the main water line and failed to repair it.
Mr. Asbill, the Delta County Commissioner; Judge Murray, the Delta County Judge; Mr. Douglas, the Delta County MUD president; and Mr. Ingram inspected a damaged property and confirmed that Legends had indeed damaged the main water line, not called it in, and left the site without remedying the problem. Moreover, they apparently discovered that Legends had not installed the water line according to contract specifications, as the line was not deep enough and needed to be lowered. After discovering these problems, Delta County decided to change contractors. Up to this point, Legends had installed approximately 4,800 feet of water line.
Near the end of February 2018, Delta County hired Plaintiff JB&L Utility Contractors ("JB&L") to complete the installation of the remaining water line. Shortly thereafter, Delta County representatives met with Legends representatives, Richard Cayer and Mike Talbert, and Legends agreed to lower the 4,800 feet of water line already installed. They further agreed to transfer all materials to JB&L and to have JB&L take over and complete the project. The agreement between Legends and JB&L was reduced to a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), dated March 5, 2018 and signed by both Legends and JB&L. The terms of the MOU are reproduced in full below.
On March 8, 2018, the MOU was revised to include two additional terms. The additional terms were included in handwriting at the bottom of the MOU and are reproduced below.
The revised MOU was not initialed, signed, or dated by either Legends or JB&L. According to JB&L, both sides agreed to the additional terms.
JB&L completed its work on the project on November 13, 2018. Delta County, Legends, and a project engineer inspected JB&L's work and approved it in a Certificate of Construction Completion ("COCC"). The COCC's material provisions are reproduced below.
The COCC was signed and dated by Mike Tibbets, the project engineer; Richard Cayer, a Legends representative and project Contractor; and Judge Murray, the Chief Elected Official/Designee.
In its Amended Complaint, JB&L asserts three causes of action: (1) breach of contract against Legends, Defendant Texas Bonding Company, and Defendant North American Construction Services ("NACS"); (2) breach of fiduciary duty against NACS; and (3) negligence against NACS.
JB&L seeks summary judgment as to only the breach of contract action against Legends. It is undisputed that the full contract price for JB&L's work was $155,230.60 and that JB&L has received $68,790.99 on the contract. In this motion, JB&L seeks the outstanding $86,439.61 from Legends plus reasonable attorney's fees.
On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. #30). On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Legends (Dkt. #45).
The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary judgment is proper under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. The trial court "must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment." Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of its motion and identifying "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials" that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant bears the burden of proof on a claim or defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must come forward with evidence that establishes "beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense." Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant bears the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmovant's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dall. Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000).
Once the movant has carried its burden, the nonmovant must "respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating there is a genuine issue for trial." Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49). A nonmovant must present affirmative evidence to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. Mere denials of material facts, unsworn allegations, or arguments and assertions in briefs or legal memoranda will not suffice to carry this burden. Rather, the Court requires "significant probative evidence" from the nonmovant to dismiss a request for summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting Antitrust Litig., 672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982) (quoting Ferguson v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978)). The Court must consider all of the evidence but "refrain from making any credibility determinations or weighing the evidence." Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007).
To prevail on a breach of contract claim in Texas, the plaintiff must show that (1) a valid contract exists; (2) the plaintiff performed or tendered performance as contractually required; (3) the defendant breached the contract by failing to perform or tender performance as contractually required; and (4) the plaintiff sustained damages due to the breach. Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Great W. Drilling, Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 882, 890 (Tex. 2019).
Legends did not respond to JB&L's motion for partial summary judgment or otherwise oppose the claims and arguments advanced by JB&L, so the Court presumes that Legends does not controvert the facts set out by JB&L and has no evidence to offer in opposition to JB&L's motion. LOCAL RULE CV-7(d).
There does not appear to be a dispute about the existence of a valid contract. The MOU was executed and signed on March 5, 2018 by both parties.
The analysis, then, turns on whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to the second and third elements. The Court will turn first to the second element. The MOU establishes JB&L's contractual obligations to Legends. Specifically, Paragraphs 2, 3, 7-8, 10-13, and 15 of the MOU set out in substantial part JB&L's obligations. JB&L argues that it met all of its obligations, and Legends advances no argument contesting that claim. In fact, in signing the COCC, Legends certified that all construction work for the Mt. Joy and Pecan Gap Water System Improvements Project was completed, inspected, and approved. As JB&L was the party responsible for completing the construction work, the Court is satisfied that JB&L did indeed fully perform its obligations under the MOU. Any potential argument to the contrary is belied by Legends' own certification that JB&L performed "in accordance with the plans and specifications and all amendments, change orders and supplemental agreements thereto." Accordingly, based on the summary judgment record, the Court is satisfied that JB&L has met all of its obligations under the MOU and that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the second element.
Turning to the third element, the Court finds that Legends breached the contract by failing to tender payment as contractually required. The fifth paragraph of the MOU provides that Legends would pay JB&L $155,230.60 for full completion of the construction work as described in the agreement. JB&L fully performed the work, but as the Bissell, Ingram, and Edwards affidavits indicate, Legends has not paid JB&L the agreed amount (Dkt. #45-4; Dkt. #45-5; Dkt. #45-6). Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the third element, and the only issue remaining for the Court is the amount owed on the contract.
It is undisputed that the full contract price for JB&L's work was $155,230.60. It is also undisputed that JB&L has received some payment for its work. Specifically, it appears that JB&L has received $57,654.47 from Delta County and the Delta County MUD and $11,136.52 in retainage. In total, then, JB&L has received $68,790.99 on the contract. Reducing the contract price by this amount, the balance comes to $86,439.61. Accordingly, Legends is liable to JB&L in contract damages for $86,439.61.
As a final matter, JB&L requests reasonable and necessary attorney's fees. This is a breach of contract case governed by Texas law, and Texas law provides for recovery of "reasonable attorney's fees from an individual or corporation, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs, if the claim is for . . . an oral or written contract." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001(8).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby
In addition, the Court finds JB&L is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees from Legends. JB&L is accordingly
All other relief not sought herein is