C.D.W. Services, LLC v. New Bridge Partners, LLC

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 2024-CA-0081
• Status: Published

Opinion

C.D.W. SERVICES, LLC * NO. 2024-CA-0081

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

NEW BRIDGE PARTNERS, * FOURTH CIRCUIT LLC * STATE OF LOUISIANA

*

* *******

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

C.D.W. SERVICES, LLC NO. 2024-CA-0082

VERSUS

NEW BRIDGE PARTNERS, LLC

JCL 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. I

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 terminated CDW for breach of contract. Further, the jury

found that CDW did breach its contractual obligations to New Bridge and caused

1 $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.