LA Contracting Enterprise, LLC v. South Lafourche Levee District and Keith Guidry, in his capacity as President of South Lafourche Levee District

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

LA CONTRACTING ENTERPRISE, LLC

VERSUS

SOUTH LAFOURCHE LEVEE DISTRICT
AND KEITH GUIDRY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF
SOUTH LAFOURCHE LEVEE DISTRICT

Judgment Rendered: DEC 2 0 2024

Appealed from the
17" Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Lafourche
State of Louisiana
Docket No. 148539

The Honorable Marla M. Abel, Judge Presiding

Loretta G. Mince Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant,
New Orleans, Louisiana LA Contracting Enterprise, LLC

Ryan P. Collins Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees,

Ray A. Collins South Lafourche Levee District and
Larose, Louisiana Keith Guidry, in his capacity as
President of the South Lafourche
Levee District

BEFORE: WOLFE, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.

MILLER, J.

This matter is before us on appeal by plaintiff, LA Contracting Enterprise,

LLC, from a judgment of the trial court denying its petition for writ of mandamus

seeking to compel defendants, the South Lafourche Levee District and its

President, Keith Guidry, to pay funds allegedly due under a public works contract.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Upon acceptance of its successful bid, on November 28, 2022, LA

Contracting Enterprise, LLC, (" LA Contracting") and the South Lafourche Levee

District (" the Levee District") entered into a public works contract for the Levee

District' s D -North Ramp Project (" the project") for the base bid amount of

692, 710. 00. Pursuant to the contract, LA Contracting, " the Contractor," was to

complete all work, which included providing all equipment, labor, and material

necessary for the construction of proposed repairs to the flood wall, elevation of

the current roadway ramp over the levee at Loop Road to + 16' NAVD 88, and all

civil site work noted on the drawings. The project was designed by GIS

Engineering, LLC, who was tasked with the duties and responsibilities assigned to

the Engineer" in connection with completion of the work in accordance with the

contract. The Engineer' s duties included processing applications for payment by

the Contractor for approval and recommendation for payment by the Levee

District, " the Owner."

Work on the project commenced in February of 2023. On March 1, 2023

and March 31, 2023, LA Contracting submitted its first and second payment

applications for the amounts of $ 38, 950. 00 and $ 28, 357. 50 ( less retainage)

respectively, which were approved by the Engineer, and paid by the Levee District.

Thereafter, a dispute arose as to whether the plans and specifications required use

of material stockpiled by the Levee District onsite or whether the contract provided

PJ-

LA Contracting the option to utilize material from certain borrow pits in excess of

the volumes stated in the bid form for " excavation" to meet its requirements for

placement of the " embankment" material. Simply stated, the parties disputed

where the material was to be taken from, how much would be taken, and how the

material would be categorized under the contract.

Following a meeting with all parties, the Levee District issued a letter on

May 25, 2023, to Jeremy Landry, the owner of LA Contracting, explaining that LA

Contracting' s opinion that " it has the option to utilize material from an off-site

borrow source in excess of the volumes stated in the bid form for Excavation to

meet its requirements for placement of the Embankment material" triggers a

change in the contract costs in excess of the $ 250, 000. 00 change order limit

currently allowed under the Public Bid Law. The Levee District thus advised LA

Contracting that it had voted to terminate the contract for convenience pursuant to

Section I, Article 15. 4 of the General Conditions of the contract.' The termination

was effective as of the date of the letter, May 25, 2023, and LA Contracting' s

equipment was to be " demobilized" within seven days of the letter.

Section I, Article 15. 4 provides in part:

15. 4 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: Upon seven days'
written notice to CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER, OWNER. may,
without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy,
elect to abandon the Work and terminate the Agreement.

15. 4. 1 In any termination for convenience, CONTRACTOR shall be
paid for ( a) Work completed, in accordance with the Contract
Documents, before receipt of the notice of termination, and ( b)
reasonable termination settlement costs for commitments that have
become firm before the termination. CONTRACTOR shall not be
paid any anticipated and unrealized supplemental costs, administrative
expenses and profit for uncompleted Work. If no agreement can be
reached as to reasonable termination costs, OWNER. and

CONTRACTOR shall follow the provisions in federal regulation FAR
52. 249- 2 found in 48 CFR Part 52.

The Levee District held a special meeting on May 25, 2023, where it voted to terminate
the contract with LA Contracting.

3

After the contract was terminated, in accordance with Article 15. 4. 1, on June

2, 20231 LA Contracting submitted its third application for payment in the amount

of $285, 569.43 accompanied with a cover letter explaining that it was seeking

payment for what it understood to be an undisputed amount due for work

performed. It further provided notice that it intended to appeal any decision by the

Engineer or the Levee District that denied payment for all work performed and that

it intended to seek all costs and damages incurred through the date of termination

of the contract, including all excavation work performed and all standby time

incurred. After review of the application, the Engineer determined that it required

amendment and resubmission and returned it to LA Contracting to implement its

suggested corrections. On June 7, 2023, LA Contracting amended and resubmitted

the payment application as to the undisputed amounts owed under the contract. In

doing so, LA Contracting expressly reserved its right to pursue payment of all

additional monies owed for work completed under the contract, including but not

limited to amounts included in previously submitted pay applications and amounts

due based on the final surveys for the project. It further reiterated its intention to

appeal any decision denying payment for the amounts it had previously submitted.

The amended third pay application for the amount of $152, 920. 93 was approved

by the Engineer and paid by the Levee District.

On July 27, 2023, LA Contracting submitted its fourth and final application

for payment in the amount of $583, 893. 88. 2 After review of the application, the

Engineer instructed LA Contracting to amend and resubmit the application in

accordance with its comments. By letter dated August 14, 2023, LA Contracting

informed the Engineer that it was submitting a revised application and that it was

also prepared to execute a change order to reduce the quantity of Bid Item 203- 02

from 2, 919 to 2, 896 cubic yards. LA Contracting further advised that it was due

2This requested amount, when added to the payments received totals more than
800,000.00 —well above the original base bid amount.

M

full payment for all excavation work completed totaling 12, 093 cubic yards

pursuant to Section 203 of the contract concerning excavation, despite the

LA
Engineer' s position that only 2, 896 cubic yards would be approved.

Contracting noted that Section 11. 3. 2 of the contract allowed for adjustment of the

contract price, which was supported by the survey documentation previously

provided showing total excavation of 12, 093 cubic yards. LA Contracting thus

sought full payment for this amount and additional sums for Bid Items 713- 01 -

temporary signs and barricades, 740- 01 - construction layout, and 740- 02 - utility

oversight and coordination.

By letter dated September 7, 2023, the Engineer advised LA Contracting

that, after review of its fourth payment application, the Engineer would approve

and recommend a total payment amount of $440, 322. 00 for the terminated project,

which included payment for 7, 523 cubic yards of embankment utilizing the

stockpiled material onsite and 2, 896 cubic yards of excavation utilizing material

from the offsite pit. Th Engineer prepared a fourth change order reflecting these

changes. LA Contracting did not consent to the proposed fourth change order

because GIS refused to recommend payment for all work completed, maintaining

its position that it would only approve payment for 2, 896 cubic yards of

excavation, 80% for all signs, barricades, and construction layout, and 65% for

utility oversight.

On September 22, 2023, LA Contracting filed a suit for mandamus pursuant

to the Louisiana Public Works Act seeking funds " due and owing" under the

contract, as well as an award of attorney' s fees and interest pursuant to La. R.S.

38: 2191. LA Contracting contended that the Levee District refused to compensate

it for the full amount due for all work completed prior to the termination of the

contract.
First, LA Contracting contended that of the total 12, 093. 09 cubic yards

excavated on site, the Levee District paid for 2, 896 cubic yards, but refused to pay

61

for the remaining 9, 197. 09 cubic yards excavated, amounting to $ 423, 066. 14.

Secondly, LA Contracting contended that the Levee District refused to provide full
payment of $ 11, 450.00 for three lump sum bid items ( temporary signs and

barricades, construction layout, and utility oversight and coordination) although all

work was completed.

The matter was heard before the trial court on October 18, 2023. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court allowed the parties to submit post -trial

briefs. On January 12, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment denying LA

Contracting' s petition for writ of mandamus. The judgment of the trial court was

accompanied by written reasons wherein it determined that the Levee District' s

decision to not pay the full amount of the fourth application for payment was not

arbitrary or without reasonable cause, but, instead, was based on the

recommendation of the Project Engineer. The trial court further determined that

this dispute resulted from a disagreement between the parties as to the contract' s

interpretation. Thus, the trial court concluded that mandamus relief was not

available.

LA Contracting filed the instant appeal contending that the trial court erred

in: ( 1) determining that mandamus relief was not available because the Levee

District disputes the amounts claimed; and ( 2) denying its petition for mandamus

where the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that it was entitled to the

amounts claimed under the contract.

DISCUSSION

The denial of a request for a writ of mandamus is an appealable judgment.

City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas, 2016- 0655 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 12/ 17), 218 So. 3d

at 163. An appellate court reviews a district court' s judgment denying a writ of

mandamus under an abuse of discretion standard. Gulfsouth Credit Inc. v. Wiley,

2019- 0526 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1/ 9/ 20), 294 So. 3d 1096, 1097. Findings of fact in a

mandamus proceeding are subject to a manifest error standard of review. Zillow,

Inc. v. Gardner, 2021- 1172 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 4/ 8/ 22), 341 So. 3d 765, 769.

However, in determining the proper interpretation of a statute, which involves a

question of law, appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review. Stevens

Construction & Design, L.L.C. v. St. Tammany Fire Protection District No. 1,

2019- 0955 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 7/ 8/ 20), 308 So. 3d 724, 731, writ denied, 2020-

00990 ( La. 11/ 4/ 20), 303 So. 3d 652.

The general mandamus articles of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure

define mandamus as a writ directed to a public officer to compel him to perform a

ministerial duty required by law. See La. C. C.P. arts. 3861, 3863. A ministerial

duty is a duty in which no element of discretion is left to the public officer. It is a

simple, definite duty, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and

imposed by law. Hoag v. State, 2004- 0857 ( La. 12/ 1/ 04), 889 So. 2d 1019, 1024.

Mandamus will not lie in matters in which discretion and evaluation of evidence

must be exercised. The remedy is not available to command the performance of an

act which contains any element of discretion, however slight. City of Baton

Rouge, 218 So. 3d at 163. To this point, in its petition for mandamus, LA

Contracting prayed that the Levee District be ordered to perform its ministerial

duty.

In this case, mandamus was filed seeking payment on a public contract

pursuant to La. R.S. 38: 2191. This court has held that where the legislature has

statutorily provided mandamus as a remedy under La. R.S. 38: 2191, the general

rules for mandamus have limited application. Cf. Law Industries LLC v. Board of

Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 2018- 1756 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 2/ 20),

300 So. 3d 21, 30, writ denied, 2020- 00745 ( La. 10/ 6/ 20), 302 So. 3d 515, citing

Jazz Casino Company, L.L.C. v. Bridges, 2016- 1663 ( La. 5/ 3/ 17), 223 So. 3d 488,

496- 497. For example, LA Contracting was not required to show that relief was

7

not available by ordinary means or that the delay involved in obtaining ordinary

relief may cause injustice, as required by La. C. C. P. art. 3862. 3 See Law

Industries, LLC, 300 So. 3d at 30. Nonetheless, a public entity is not subject to

mandamus compelling payment when the terms of the contract give the public

entity discretion as to whether payment is due and payable. Mandamus relief

under La. R.S. 38: 2191 is available only when there is no discretion left to the

public entity as to whether payment is due and payable under the terms of the

contract. Stevens Construction & Design, L.L.C., 308 So. 3d at 732, citin

Wallace C. Drennan Inc. v. St. Charles Parish, 2016- 177 ( La. App. 5th Cir.

9/ 22/ 16), 202 So. 3d 535, 544.

Louisiana Revised Statute 38: 2191 provides as follows:'

A. All public entities shall promptly pay all obligations including
approved change orders, arising under public contracts when the
obligations become due and payable under the contract. All
progressive stage payments and final payments shall be paid when
they respectively become due and payable under the contract.

B. ( 1) Any public entity failing to make any progressive stage
payment within forty-five days following receipt of a certified request
for payment by the public entity without reasonable cause shall be
liable for reasonable attorney fees and interest charged at one- half
percent accumulated daily, not to exceed fifteen percent. Any public
entity failing to make any final payments after formal final acceptance
and within forty- five days following receipt of a clear lien certificate
by the public entity shall be liable for reasonable attorney fees and
interest charged at one- half percent accumulated daily, not to exceed
fifteen percent.

2) Any interest received by the contractor pursuant to Paragraph ( 1)
of this Subsection, shall be disbursed on a prorated basis among the
contractor and subcontractors, each receiving a prorated portion based

3Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3862 provides that mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy to be applied where the law provides no relief by ordinary means or where
the delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief may cause injustice.

4Louisiana Revised Statute 38: 2191 was recently amended by 2024 La. Acts, No. 165, §
1, to enact Section (E), which provides that:

A declaration that a public works contract is null and void as being contrary to the
provisions of R.S. 38: 2211 et seq., shall not affect amounts due and payable under
the contract, including overhead and profit, for the work performed by or on
behalf of the contractor.

3

on the principal amount due within ten business days of receipt of the
interest.

C. The provisions of this Section shall not be subject to waiver by
contract.

D. Any public entity failing to make any progressive stage payments
arbitrarily or without reasonable cause, or any final payment when
due as provided in this Section, shall be subject to mandamus to
compel the payment of the sums due under the contract up to the
amount of the appropriation made for the award and execution of the
contract, including any authorized change orders.

Subsection D of La. R.S. 38: 2191 sets forth two circumstances where

mandamus relief is available against public entities: ( 1) when a public entity has

failed to make progressive stage payments arbitrarily or without reasonable cause

under a contract; or ( 2) when a public entity had failed to tender a final payment

when due under the contract. Stevens Construction & Design, L.L.C., 308 So. 3d

at 732. Moreover, under subsection A of La. R.S. 38: 2191 the public entity' s

obligation to pay applies to " approved change orders." Thus, in order to be

entitled to mandamus relief against the Levee District, LA Contracting must

establish that the Levee District " arbitrarily or without reasonable cause" failed to

make progressive stage payments or failed to make final payment " when due"

under the contract. Stevens Construction & Design, L.L.C., 308 So. 3d at 732.

R] easonable cause" for nonpayment exists when the terms of the contract do not

mandate payment under certain circumstances of the particular case. Stevens

Construction & Design, L.L.C., 308 So. 3d at 732.

A reading of La. R.S. 38: 2191 in pari materia with the general mandamus

articles of the Code of Civil Procedure demonstrates that a public entity is not

subject to mandamus compelling payment of a progressive stage payment when the

terms of the contract give the public entity discretion as to whether payment is due

and payable. Wallace C. Drennan Inc., 202 So. 3d at 544. As noted by the court

in Drennan, when the legislative authorization of a mandamus action under La.

9

R.S. 38: 2191( D) is construed with the pre- existing general mandamus articles set

forth in La. C. C. P. arts. 3861, et seq., so as to harmonize and reconcile those

provisions, mandamus relief under La. R. S. 38: 2191 is available only when there is

no discretion left to the public entity as to whether payment is due and payable

under the terms of the contract. Wallace C. Drennan, Inc., 202 So. 3d at 544.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court determined that the contract

provided that payment shall be made " as recommended by the Engineer," and that

the Levee District' s decision not to pay the fourth application for payment

submitted by LA Contracting was based on the Engineer' s recommendation that

LA Contracting amend and resubmit the application. The trial court further

determined that the reasons the Engineer provided LA Contracting for not

approving the application were not arbitrary, but instead, " resulted from a

disagreement between the parties regarding interpretation of the [ c] ontract." In

doing so, the trial court cited the following provisions of the contract:

SECTION F

STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR

Article 5 PAYMENT PROCEDURE

5. 1 Progress Payments. OWNER shall make progress payments on
the Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR' S Applications for
Payment as recommended by ENGINEER, on or about the 25th day
of each month during construction as provided below. All progress
payments will be made on the basis of the work measured by the
schedule of values provided for in paragraph 14. 1 of the General
Conditions.

SECTION I

GENERAL CONDITIONS

ARTICLE 14 — Payments to Contractor and Completion

14. 4
REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR PROGRESS PAYMENT:
ENGINEER will, within ten days after receipt of each application for
Payment, either indicate in writing a recommendation of payment and
present the Application to OWNER, or return the Application to

ME

CONTRACTOR indicating in writing ENGINEER' S reasons for
refusing to recommend payment. In the latter case, CONTRACTOR
may make the necessary corrections and re -submit the Application.
Forty-five (45) days after presentation of the Application for Payment
with ENGINEER' S recommendation, the amount recommended will
subject to the provisions of the last sentence of paragraph of 14. 7)
become due and when due will be paid by OWNER to

CONTRACTOR.

Section 14. 7 provides, in part, that the:

ENGINEER may refuse to recommend the whole or any part of any
payment if, in the ENGINEER' S opinion, it would be incorrect to
make such representations to OWNER. ENGINEER may also refuse
to recommend any such payment, or, because of subsequently
discovered evidence or the results of subsequent inspections or tests,
nullify and such payment previously recommended, to such extent as
may be necessary in ENGINEER' S opinion to protect OWNER from
loss[.]

Mr. Landry testified at trial for LA Contracting. Mr. Landry testified that

the bid item for excavation covers excavation on a contractor provided ( offsite) pit

or an onsite borrow pit and allows the Contractor to use borrow areas other than

those indicated provided that the Engineer approves their location and dimensions.

Mr. Landry contends on appeal that contract provisions 203. 1, 203. 2, and 203. 3

confirm his option to excavate from onsite or offsite borrow pits. Mr. Landry

testified that the dispute herein arose when the Levee District advised that it would

not be paying for excavation from the onsite borrow pit. He stated that after LA

Contracting submitted its fourth and final pay application seeking full payment for

the total excavation amount and other bid items, the application was returned with

comments by the Engineer setting forth his position. According to Mr. Landry, he

responded by sending a letter to the Engineer reiterating his position that payment

for the work performed utilizing material onsite fell under the excavation

provisions of the contract. Mr. Landry disputed that treatment of onsite materials

fell under embankment provisions where treatment of onsite materials required

more work and was more labor intensive than utilizing material from an offsite pit.

He testified that the Levee District was incorrect about the physical application in

11

the field and was incorrect in their measurement of onsite material used. Mr.

Landry stated that when the Engineer responded maintaining its position that it

would only recommend payment for 2,$ 96 cubic yards of excavation and partial

percentages for signage and barricades, construction layout, and utility oversight,

he filed the petition for mandamus to compel payment.

The Levee District presented the testimony of its general manager, Nicholas

Matherne. Mr. Matherne testified that the Levee District has discretion within the

confines of the contract and that the contract specifies that the work has to be

approved by the Engineer. He testified that he believed the source of the dispute

between the Contractor and the Levee District was the definition of what was

considered excavation versus what was considered embankment under the terms of

the contract. According to Mr. Matherne, payment for onsite material was

provided for as an embankment item in the bid documents. Mr. Matherne

explained that when the project was designed and bid, in the specifications and

plans, the amount of cubic yardage that was calculated as needed for embankment

included the amount of material that had already been previously stockpiled onsite

by a separate contractor. Thus, approximately 12, 770 cubic yards of material that

could have been taken from the stockpile and would have been utilized in the

construction of the levee section at that project site. Mr. Matherne stated that LA

Contracting' s fourth pay application was reviewed by the Engineer and sent back

to LA Contracting for revision and resubmittal. He testified that the Engineer has

not recommended that the Levee District pay the fourth pay application submitted

by LA Contracting.'

In its brief on appeal, LA Contracting contends that pursuant to Law

Industries, LLC, 300 So. 3d at 30- 31, the trial court was required to determine the

5The Public Works Bid Form described a base bid of $108, 330.00 ( quantity times unit
price) for excavation with a unit price of $ 46.00. The same form described a base bid of
2$ 0, 940.00 ( quantity times unit price) for embankment with a unit price of $22.00.

12

amount due to it for work completed prior to the termination of the contract in a

summary proceeding by virtue of the fact that it sought mandamus relief pursuant

to La. R. S. 38: 2191. However, in Law Industries, this court acknowledged that,

before a trial court must determine an amount due for work completed, La. R.S.

38: 2191( D) requires that certain " conditions must be met to seek prompt payment

and provides a procedure for accomplishing this end that is consistent with the

general mandamus principles and Louisiana jurisprudence." Law Industries LLC,

300 So. 3d at 30.

Law Industries is factually distinguishable from the instant case. In Law

Industries, the defendant alleged in a mandamus proceeding that no amounts were

due under the public contract because it was entitled to withhold liquidated

damages in accordance with the terms of the contract. Given the parties'

agreement that the amount of stipulated damages was $ 29, 000. 00, the defendant

contended it had a right to an offset in that amount under the contract. The trial

court found that applying an offset of $ 500.00 per day in liquidated damages

pursuant to the contract against the amount of stipulated damages involved an

element of discretion and denied the plaintiff' s petition for mandamus. Law

Industries, LLC, 300 So. 3d at 24- 25. The issue thus presented on appeal was

whether the trial court could deduct the amount of liquidated damages as provided

for in a public contract from the total amount due under the contract in a

mandamus proceeding pursuant to La. R.S. 38: 2191. Law Industries LLC, 300

So. 3d at 27. This court determined that where La. R.S. 38: 2191( D) states that a

public entity " shall" be subject to a mandamus to compel the payment of any sums
due under the contract, the trial court must determine the total amount of liquidated

damages that is owed to the defendant, and remanded to the trial court to do so.

Law Industries LLC, 300 So. 3d at 29- 30. Notably, in Law Industries there was

13

no dispute over the contract' s interpretation or the sums due under the contract as

in the case before us.

Instead, we find the Stevens case, which was handed down four months after

Law Industries LLC, more closely aligned with the facts herein. In Stevens, the

contractor filed a petition for mandamus, pursuant to La. R.S. 38: 2191, seeking

payment on a contract with the public fire department. Payment under the public

contract therein, however, was conditioned upon the issuance of a Certificate of

Payment by the Architect following his evaluation of the work and determination

that the work was in accordance with the contract documents. The contract further

provided that the Architect could withhold a Certificate for Payment in whole or in

part, to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the fire department. The trial

court denied mandamus relief for payment on the public contract requested by the
contractor. On review, this court considered the evidence submitted therein, which

included the public contract, payment applications submitted by the contractor, and

letters from the Architect explaining the reasons for his decision to withhold

payments, and noted that in each withholding, the Architect referenced the contract

provision it relied on in support of its recommendation to withhold payment in

whole or in part. Under these circumstances, this court determined that the public

fire department was not arbitrary or without reasonable cause in withholding
payment under the contract, and found no abuse of the trial court' s discretion in

denying mandamus relief. See Stevens Construction & Design, L.L.C., 308 So. 3d

at 732- 735.

We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence herein and find that both sides

present compelling arguments outlining their opposing interpretations of the

contract, as set forth above.6 However, the contract provides that the Levee

6I doing so, we note that at the hearing, LA Contracting only presented the testimony of
one witness, Mr. Landry, and the Levee District presented the testimony of one witness, Mr.
Matherne.

14

District shall make payments as recommended by the Engineer, and for the reasons

assigned by the Engineer, the Engineer made no such recommendation for full

payment.
Considering the Engineer' s comments on the fourth pay application,

which it returned to LA Contracting with instructions to amend and resubmit, and

the correspondence exchanged between the parties explaining how they arrive at

differing amounts due under their respective interpretations of the contract, we

cannot say that the Levee District' s decision to withhold the fourth and final

payment was made " arbitrarily or without reasonable cause."' See Stevens

Construction & Design, L.L.C., 308 So. 3d at 735. Such a finding is required

before a writ of mandamus may issue. Accordingly, we find that LA Contracting

has not established that it is entitled to mandamus relief to compel payment

pursuant to La. R. S. 38: 2191.

The facts of this case call us to further caution that mandamus is not a

substitute for an ordinary proceeding. Here, LA Contracting' s request for a writ of

mandamus is not an appropriate substitute for the thorough vetting permitted

through ordinary process. The issues raised through their respective interpretations

of the contract are disputed and highly technical. The court is faced with

disagreements over contractual interpretation and the underlying facts, which are

steeped in engineering principals and jargon. While discovery is not prohibited

within this action, the engagement of experts and the exchange of reports is

particularly challenging within the context of a summary proceeding. To demand

that the trial court resolve all of the disputes presented within an abbreviated

timeframe would do a disservice to the litigants. As noted by Judge Welch in his

7We further note that to the extent that the contract requires that the Engineer review the
applications for payment, and that approval of the application and recommendation for payment
is based on the " opinion" of the Engineer, this exercise implies an element of discretion not
appropriate for mandamus proceedings. See Stevens Construction & Design L.L.C., 308 So. 3d
at 732. Thus, because a determination as to whether payment is due and payable under the terms
of the contract is subject to the Engineer' s discretion, mandamus relief under La. R.S. 38: 2191 is
not available.

15

dissenting opinion in Law Industries, such an approach " merges the ordinary

proceeding with the highly restricted mandamus summary proceeding and thwarts

the legislative intent of La. R.S. 38: 2191 for public entities to promptly pay monies

owed under public contracts." Law Industries, LLC, 300 So. 3d at 35.

On review, we find no abuse of the trial court' s discretion in denying LA

Contracting' s petition for mandamus relief.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, the January 12, 2024 judgment of the

trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the appellant,

LA Contracting Enterprise, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

16