Amilcor A.J. Gotreaux v. Dairy Queen, Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 11-28

AMILCOR A.J. GOTREAUX

VERSUS

DAIRY QUEEN, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2007-5515
HONORABLE WILFORD D. CARTER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY HOWARD EZELL
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy Howard Ezell, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Andrew Holleman Meyers
Timothy Wayne Meyers
Breaud & Meyers
P. O. Box 3448
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 266-2200
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Dequincy Restaurants, Inc.
Pam Brown

Amilcor A.J. Gotreaux
In Proper Person
1311 Florence Street
Jennings, LA 70546
(337) 430-4606
Plaintiff/Appellant

EZELL, JUDGE.

Amilcor Gotreaux appeals the decision of the trial court granting summary

judgment in favor of Pam Brown and DeQuincy Restaurants, Inc. (DRI). For the

following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Ms. Brown and her sister are the owners and operators of DRI, which runs a

Dairy Queen restaurant in DeQuincy. Mr. Gotreaux was hired to demolish the

restaurant building after it sustained damage during Hurricane Rita in 2005. He

admits he was fully compensated for his demolition work. In addition to that work,

Mr. Gotreaux was offered a chance to bid on building a new building for DRI. As

part of the bid process, he was presented with a booklet describing what was expected

in a bid. Noted in the booklet was that bid submitters would be required to sign a

contract and begin construction within seven days of acceptance of a bid and to be

able to provide a list of construction materials, their costs, and subcontractors within

ten days of bid acceptance. Bids were to be lump sum bids, including costs of

materials and subcontractors. Mr. Gotreaux submitted a bid of $500,000, which was

accepted in July of 2006. He failed to provide the lists of materials and

subcontractors in a timely fashion, which eventually gave light to the fact that his bid

violated the bid submission requirements, as his bid did not include those costs. DRI

later accepted a separate bid of $720,000 to rebuild the restaurant from another

builder.

Mr. Gotreaux filed the current suit seeking to enforce the bid acceptance as a

valid contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DRI, dismissing

Mr. Gotreaux’s claims. From that decision, Mr. Gotreaux appeals.

Mr. Gotreaux asserts no assignment of error on appeal. However, in the

interests of justice, we will read his brief as claiming that the trial court erred in

1

granting DRI’s motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgments are reviewed de novo on appeal, with the
reviewing court using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s
determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate; whether
there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Power Marketing Direct, Inc.
v. Foster, 05-2023 (La.9/6/06), 938 So.2d 662, 669; Smith v. Our Lady
of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512 (La.7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 750.

A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 966(B). This article was amended in 1996 to
provide that “summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action . . . The
procedure is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends.”
La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 966(A)(2).

La. Safety Ass’n of Timbermen Self-Insurers Fund v. La. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 09-23, p.

5 (La. 6/26/09), 17 So.3d 350, 353-54.

From the record before this court, we can find no genuine issue of material fact.

Mr. Gotreaux never formalized any contract with DRI. In fact, his bid was so faulty

that there could never have been any true meeting of the minds between the parties.

Moreover, it seems from the record that Mr. Gotreaux never even read the bid

booklet, as it clearly pointed out that the bid did “not obligate the Owner . . . in any

way” and that the “Owner assumes no obligation to enter into a contract for the

work.” A separate, formal contract would be required seven days after any bid was

accepted. Mr. Gotreaux did not submit a lump sum bid as required, did not talk to

subcontractors about the job, let alone submit the required list of subcontractors, did

not submit a materials list, nor did he begin construction within seven days as set

forth in the bid book. Simply put, Mr. Gotreaux seeks to enforce the bid agreement

as a contract to build the restaurant, even though he failed to meet any of the criteria

it contained and would have breached any such contract several times over, had one

2

actually been formed. The trial court committed no error, as DRI was clearly entitled

to summary judgment in this matter.

For the above reasons, the ruling of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Costs of

this appeal are assessed against Mr. Gotreaux.

AFFIRMED.

3