Opinion ID: 3005104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cox’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 2008). We may affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on any ground supported by the record and presented to the district court. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). Cox moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds. Among other things, it argued that Jones could not maintain claims for fraud or redhibition against Cox based on the following evidence: (1) Cox was hired by Wells Fargo to perform work on the Residence when Wells Fargo owned the Residence; (2) Cox was not the seller of the Residence and was not party to the transaction by which Wells Fargo sold the Residence to Jones; (3) Cox did not enter into any agreement or transaction with Jones or her husband; and (4) Cox had no communication or interaction with Jones or her husband. Jones did not dispute these facts and she did not offer evidence in response to Cox’s motion for summary judgment. Indeed, in her “Statement of Contested Material Facts,” Jones admitted most of these facts. There is thus 10 Case: 15-30031 Document: 00513209556 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/28/2015 No. 15-30031 no dispute of material fact. In light of the elements of fraud and redhibition as delineated above, we hold that Cox was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jones may not maintain a redhibition claim against Cox because the evidence makes clear that Cox was not the seller of the Residence and was not involved in the transaction at issue. See LA. CIV. CODE art. 2520 (“The seller warrants the buyer against redhibitory defects, or vices, in the thing sold.”); Duplechin v. Adams, 665 So. 2d 80, 84 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1995) (“The redhibitory action is between seller and buyer, and without such a relationship, the action cannot be maintained.”). Likewise, Jones cannot maintain a fraud claim against Cox because there is no evidence that Cox made a misrepresentation, suppression, or omission with an intent to defraud: the evidence demonstrates Cox was not a party to the transaction at issue, did not otherwise interact or communicate with Jones, and performed the work for the owner of the Residence at the time, Wells Fargo. See Shelton, 798 So. 2d at 64. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Cox. We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment as to Cox; we REVERSE and REMAND the judgment as to Wells Fargo. 11