Opinion ID: 564815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 R.R. Tway, Inc. (Tway), as prime contractor, entered into a contract (the Prime Contract) with the United States to perform work in connection with a Corps of Engineers project, the East Atchafalaya Protection Basin Levee Project (the Project). In accordance with Sec. 1 of the Miller Act, Tway executed a payment bond on which Tway was the principal and Federal Insurance Company was the surety. Phil Hoffman (Mr. Hoffman) approached Tway representatives about the possibility of providing some equipment for use on the Project. On August 2, 1984, Tway and Mr. Hoffman entered into a contract (the Dozer Contract), using a form labeled Sub-Contract, in which Mr. Hoffman agreed individually to furnish a bulldozer to Tway on a fully operated basis, as needed, for a rate of $42.00 per operating hour. On August 30, 1984, Tway entered into a second contract (the Dragline Contract), again using a form labeled Sub-Contract, with J.P. Hoffman, Inc. 1 (Hoffman, Inc.), in which Hoffman, Inc. agreed to perform fill or dirt work specified in Tway's prime contract. 2 At Tway's request, Mr. Hoffman personally guaranteed his corporation's performance under the Dragline Contract. 3 Shortly after entering into the Dragline Contract, Mr. Hoffman approached David K. Williams, Jr., owner of Gulf States Enterprises Company, Inc., 3 (Gulf States) about renting a dozer and a dragline from Gulf States. Although there was apparently some discussion about the possibility of Mr. Hoffman buying the equipment, it is clear from the evidence that he rented both pieces of equipment from Gulf States. The rental agreements were oral. Williams was told by Mr. Hoffman that he had a contract with Tway, but Williams was not told by Mr. Hoffman that his corporation, Hoffman, Inc., also had a contract with Tway. 4 Gulf States rented a Kamatsu dozer and a Northwest 6 dragline to Mr. Hoffman. Gulf States invoiced Mr. Hoffman 4 for rental on the dozer from September of 1984 through April 17, 1985 for a total of $50,000.00. Gulf States invoiced Mr. Hoffman 5 for the rental of the dragline used in the performance of the Dragline Contract. The invoices covered the period of September 1984 through March 27, 1985, and totalled $36,000.00. 5 The dozer was not used to perform work under the Dozer Contract after December of 1984, but it was used to perform work under the Dragline Contract until March of 1985. 6 On June 5, 1985, Tway's attorneys demanded in writing that Gulf States remove the dozer and the dragline from the Project site. Tway refused to accept any further responsibility for the equipment, assumed Mr. Hoffman had abandoned it, and stated that the equipment had not been worked for many weeks. Gulf States removed the Kamatsu dozer on June 28, 1985, but the dragline apparently was not removed. Sometime in late June or early July Gulf States rented that dragline to Circle, Inc., another of Tway's subcontractors, for use in connection with repairing one of Circle's own draglines. Gulf States' dragline was not used in connection with completion of any work under the Dragline Contract after March of 1985. 7 Over a year later, on July 8, 1986, Gulf States filed suit pursuant to the Miller Act. In that suit Gulf States asserted an alternative basis for recovery under Louisiana law, insisting that it is entitled to recover on the theory that Tway had agreed to pay the debts of Mr. Hoffman and Hoffman, Inc. Gulf States also averred that under Louisiana law it was entitled to recover on the basis of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. 8 After a bench trial, the magistrate judge ruled that Gulf States had failed to establish that it had supplied equipment to a first tier subcontractor, as required by the Miller Act, and that Gulf States' Miller Act claims were barred by the Act's one year limitation period within which to bring suit. The magistrate judge also rejected Gulf States' state law theories of recovery. Gulf States subsequently filed a motion for new trial, which the magistrate judge denied with reasons. Gulf States timely appealed the magistrate judge's decisions. 6