Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. Latoya Cantrell, in Her Official Capacity as the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, Josh Hartley, in His Official Capacity as Acting Director of the Department of Public Works, City of New Orleans, and the City of New Orleans

WALLACE C. DRENNAN, INC. * NO. 2023-CA-0193

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
LATOYA CANTRELL, IN HER *
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF *
NEW ORLEANS, JOSH STATE OF LOUISIANA
HARTLEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL *******
CAPACITY AS ACTING
DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS, CITY OF NEW
ORLEANS, AND THE CITY OF
NEW ORLEANS

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2022-08718, DIVISION “B-5”
Honorable Rachael Johnson
******
Judge Karen K. Herman
******
On Application for Rehearing

(Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge
Karen K. Herman)

Loretta Gallaher Mince
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue
Suite 4600
New Orleans, LA 70170-4600

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Bernard Joseph Blair, II
Corwin M. St. Raymond
Donesia D. Turner
CITY ATTORNEY
1300 Perdido Street
City Hall - Room 5E03
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED;
JUDGMENT AMENDED
DECEMBER 7, 2023

KKH
RLB
PAB
Plaintiff-Appellant, Wallace C. Drennan, Inc., (“WCD”) seeks a rehearing of

this Court’s October 25, 2023 opinion that reversed in part and affirmed in part the

trial court’s December 27, 2022 judgment, which partially denied WCD’s

alternative writ of mandamus and declined to award interest for the failure of the

Defendant-Appellee, City of New Orleans (“the City”), to timely pay six invoices

pursuant to La. R.S. 38:2191. We grant the rehearing to amend this Court’s

previous opinion to find that the City had forty-five days from April 27, 2020, to

pay Invoice No. 23662-2.B.2.2.

In its application for rehearing, WCD maintains that this Court erroneously

found a discrepancy in the testimony of Ingrid Raboteau (“Raboteau”), the invoice

manager for the Department of Public Works, with respect to Invoice No. 23662-

2.B.2.2. Upon further review of the record, we find merit in this assertion. The

inconsistencies in Raboteau’s testimony which we referenced in our opinion

appear to be in connection with a different invoice and not Invoice No. 23662-

1

2.B.2.2. The evidence thus indicates that the City, not WCD, provided the

template containing the bid item error for Invoice No. 23662-2.B.2.2.

Accordingly, the application for rehearing is granted and we amend this

Court’s previous opinion to find that the City had forty-five days from April 27,

2020, to pay Invoice No. 23662-2.B.2.2.

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED;
JUDGMENT AMENDED

2