Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-30875/USCOURTS-ca5-18-30875-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Housing Authority of New Orleans
Appellant
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Appellee
Parkcrest Builders, L.L.C.
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30875

PARKCREST BUILDERS, L.L.C., 

 Plaintiff-Counter Defendant - Appellee

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Intervenor - Appellee

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 

 Defendant-Counter Claimant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-1533

Before KING, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) engaged Parkcrest 

Builders, LLC as the general contractor for the construction of a new housing 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-30875 Document: 00515339580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2020
No. 18-30875

2

project in New Orleans. The project faced numerous and extensive delays, 

eventually leading to Parkcrest’s termination as general contractor and, 

subsequently, the termination of its surety, Liberty Mutual. Parkcrest sued 

HANO for breach of contract in terminating the contract without cause; after 

HANO terminated Liberty Mutual from the project, Liberty Mutual intervened 

alleging HANO’s breach; and HANO filed a counterclaim against Liberty 

Mutual alleging bad faith breach and fraudulent misrepresentation. The 

district court determined, after a 7-day bench trial, that Parkcrest and Liberty 

Mutual were not to blame for the delays to the project, and found HANO liable 

to Liberty Mutual for the remaining balance of the contract minus undisputed 

items left for HANO to finish. HANO’s appeal asserts error at nearly every 

stage of the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. After careful 

review of the record in this case, full consideration of the parties’ briefs and 

oral arguments, and the district court’s thorough findings and conclusions, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment against HANO for essentially the reasons 

stated by that court.

The district court’s judgment included an unquantified award of 

attorneys’ fees against HANO. Although HANO’s appeal designates this 

award as error, we have previously held “that an order awarding attorney’s 

fees or costs is not reviewable on appeal until the award is reduced to a sum 

certain.” S. Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 986 F.2d 125, 131 (5th 

Cir. 1993); see also Thornton v. GMC., 136 F.3d 450, 453 (5th Cir. 1998) 

(“Normally, an unquantified award of attorney’s fees does not constitute a final 

appealable order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”). Accordingly, we lack 

jurisdiction over this portion of HANO’s appeal, and therefore dismiss for want 

of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

Case: 18-30875 Document: 00515339580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2020