Court Opinion

ID: 9353258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 16:04:45.423445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:54.539117
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                             COURT OF APPEAL

                               FIRST CIRCUIT

                               NO. 2022 CA 0737

                   COASTAL BRIDGE COMPANY, LLC

                                      VERSUS

    LOUISIANA STATE LICENSING BOARD FOR CONTRACTORS

                                        Judgment Rendered.             1 12023

                               Appealed from the
                           19th Judicial District Court
                  In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                               State of Louisiana
                               Case No. C710019

             The Honorable Timothy E. Kelley, Judge Presiding

Christopher K. LeMieux                            Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
M. Robert C. Riess, Jr.                           Coastal Bridge Company, LLC
Michael A. Levatino, Jr.
Michael D. Lane
New Orleans, Louisiana

Kevin P. Landreneau                               Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Johanna R. Landreneau                             Louisiana State Licensing Board
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                            for Contractors

                                  X   7C X X X X 3. ' iF

            BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.
THERIOT, J.

        Plaintiff-appellant, Coastal Bridge Company, LLC (" Coastal"),                       appeals the

February 22, 2022 judgment of the district court, acting in an appellate capacity in

response to a petition for judicial review filed on behalf of Coastal.                       The district

court' s February 22, 2022 judgment affirmed the decision issued by defendant -

appellee,
               the Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors ("                       the Board"),

finding Coastal violated the laws and rules and regulations governing Louisiana

contractors and revoking Coastal' s contractor' s license. For the following reasons,

we affirm.

                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

        Coastal was the holder of a commercial license.               On May 5, 2021, the Board

issued a Notice of Violation and Hearing to Coastal, stating it had reasonable

grounds to believe Coastal had violated certain statutes and/ or administrative

regulations       under      the   Board' s     jurisdiction,      specifically: (     1)     La.   R.S.

37: 2158( A)( 9),' concerning "[      p] roblems relating to the ability of the contractor, its

qualifying party, or any of its principal owners or principal shareholders to engage

in the business of contracting, as demonstrated by their prior contracting business
experience";      and (   2) La. R. S. 37: 2158( A)( 10),    2 concerning "[   d] isqualification or

debarment by any public entity." The notice advised that, on May 20, 2021, the

Board would conduct an administrative hearing to consider the alleged violations.

        On May          12 and 27, 2021,        the Board issued Notices of Continuance,

continuing the administrative hearing until June 17, 2021.                  In preparation for the

June     17,     2021      hearing,   Coastal      asserts    it    requested "      all     evidentiary

  La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)(9) was amended and renumbered as La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)( 11) by Acts
2022, No. 195, §     1,   effective August 1,   2022.   All references in this opinion to La. R.S.
37: 2158( A)( 9) are to the version of this statute as it existed prior to its amendment and
renumbering by Acts 2022, No. 195, § 1 and which was applicable at all pertinent times hereto.
 La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)( 10) was renumbered as La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)( 12) by Acts 2022, No. 195, §
1, effective August 1, 2022. All references in this opinion to La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)( 10) are to the
version of this statute as it existed prior to its renumbering by Acts 2022, No. 195, §       1 and which
was applicable at all pertinent times hereto.

                                                   2
documents/Judgments, plus the allegations giving rise" to the hearing.                                 The Board

allegedly responded with a complaint, detailing five judgments against Coastal as

well     as   notices      of     default    issued      to    Coastal     on   various      Department           of

Transportation and Development (" DOTD")                       projects.

         A hearing was held before the Board on June 17, 2021.                               Counsel for the

Board introduced evidence including, but not limited to, the following: a judgment

dated     December         11,    2019,     in   favor       of Associated      Asphalt      Partners,       LLC,

Associated Asphalt Tampa, LLC, and Associated Asphalt Marketing, LLC d/ b/ a

Associated Asphalt Port Manatee and against Coastal in the amount of $60, 391. 00,

plus interest, attorney' s fees, and expenses; a judgment dated October 14, 2020, in

favor of Sattler' s Supply Co.,                  L.L.C. and against Coastal in the amount of

 189, 617. 77,     plus interest,         attorney' s fees,      and     costs (   subject   to    a     credit   of

 40, 000. 00);   a consent judgment dated November 19, 2019, in favor of T. Disney

Trucking & Grading, Inc. and against Coastal in the amount of $74, 000. 00, plus

interest; a Board of Tax Appeals judgment dated September 10, 2020, in favor of

the Lafayette Parish School System,                   enjoining Coastal from further pursuit of

business and future pursuit of business in Lafayette Parish and recognizing the
final    sales   and/ or      use   tax     assessment        against    Coastal     in   the     full    sum     of

 362, 296. 13, plus penalties and interest together with additional statutory interest

and attorney' s fees; a Board of Tax Appeals judgment dated September 10, 2020,

in favor of the Vermillion Parish School System, enjoining Coastal from further

pursuit of business and future pursuit of business in Vermillion Parish and

recognizing the final sales and/ or use tax assessment against Coastal in the full sum

of $    115, 710. 57,
                        plus penalties and interest together with additional statutory

interest and attorney' s fees; and seven DOTD Notices of Default dated February 4,
2020 and June           12,      2020, respectively, to Coastal on seven DOTD projects,

                                                         3
disqualifying Coastal from bidding on any work let to contract by the DOTD.

Coastal did not object to the introduction of this evidence.

             At the June     17,    2021 hearing, Coastal offered testimony from its staff

counsel, Layne Dufour, and its president, Kelly Sills.               However, at the conclusion

of the June 17, 2021 hearing, the Board found Coastal guilty of violating La. R.S.

37: 2158( A)( 9) and ( 10).          The Board deferred issuing a penalty until July 15, 2021,

allowing Coastal to present evidence including agreements to satisfy the judgments

against it and evidence from a third party as to Coastal' s future viability.

             A subsequent hearing was held before the Board on July 15, 2021.                  Coastal

introduced evidence including the following: a Consent and Release Agreement

between Coastal and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("                         Nationwide"),     a

surety; a compilation report of Coastal' s financial statements prepared by Garrety

   Associates, L.L.C.,             certified public accountants;   a redacted,    signed settlement

agreement between Coastal and Sattler' s Supply Co.,                 L.L. C.;    a redacted,   signed

settlement agreement between Coastal and T. Disney Trucking & Grading, Inc.;

and a redacted signed settlement agreement between Coastal and Associated

Asphalt Partners, LLC, Associated Asphalt Tampa, LLC, and Associated Asphalt

Marketing, LLC d/ b/ a Associated Asphalt Port Manatee.                      Coastal offered the

testimony of Craig Taylor, a certified public accountant, and the testimony of Mr.
Sills.

             At the conclusion of the July 15, 2021 hearing, the Board voted to revoke

Coastal' s license.         On July 21, 2021, a Board Action was issued, notifying Coastal

that it was found guilty and its commercial license was revoked.

             On July 26,    2021, Coastal filed a " Verified Petition for Judicial Review,

Stay &        Injunction"
                            in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, seeking a preliminary
and      a    permanent      injunction     enjoining the   Board     from   revoking     Coastal' s

commercial license, an alternative stay of the Board' s decision to revoke Coastal' s

                                                    11
license, 3 and a judgment reversing the Board' s decision to revoke Coastal' s

commercial license and reinstating Coastal' s commercial license.                  Coastal alleged

the Board' s decision to revoke Coastal' s license exceeded the Board' s statutory

authority and was an abuse of discretion, where the Board was not qualified to

render financial opinions and decisions as to the viability of a contractor' s business

yet it disregarded testimony from Coastal' s CPA that Coastal is paying off its debts

and has a CPA approved plan in place to maintain long-term financial solvency.

Coastal further alleged substantive and procedural due process violations, asserting
as follows:    it was not provided fair notice of the Board' s scope of inquiry in

advance of either hearing; the Board instituted a time limit at the inception of the

July 15 hearing in an attempt to intimidate and dissuade Coastal from presenting

testimony and evidence; the Board impermissibly based its decision on matters

outside its purview ( e. g.,      character and personal matters concerning Coastal' s

ownership and improper motives); and the Board' s final decision was devoid of

findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by La. R.S. 49: 958. 4

        On October 1, 2021, a copy of the administrative record was filed with the

district court.    Coastal' s Petition for Judicial Review was heard on February 1,
2022.    At the conclusion of the February 1, 2022 hearing, the district court noted

Coastal had five judgments against it as well as seven defaults with the DOTD.

The district court found the record did not contain any written findings of fact or

conclusions of law, but looking at the record, the statutory requirements were met,

as the findings of fact and conclusions of law were implicit therein. Moreover, it

noted Coastal was present during the hearing when the decision was made.                         The

district court, ultimately, concluded there was sufficient evidence presented to

3 On August 26, 2021, the district court heard Coastal' s Petition for a Stay and Preliminary
Injunction, which was denied on September 17, 2021.
4 La. R.S. 49: 958 was redesignated as La. R.S. 49: 977 by Acts 2022, No. 663, §          1, effective
August 1, 2022. All references in this opinion to La. R. S. 49: 958 are to the version of this statute
as it existed prior to its redesignation by Acts 2022, No. 663, §   1 and which was applicable at all
pertinent times hereto.

                                                  5
support the Board' s decision and it affirmed that decision.               On February 22, 2022,

the district court signed a judgment, "               affirm[ ing] the decision issued by the

Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors finding Coastal Bridge Company,

LLC violated the laws and rules and regulations governing Louisiana contractors

and revoking Coastal Bridge Company, LLC' s contractor' s license ..."

        Coastal appeals the district court' s February 22, 2022 judgment, assigning as

error the following: ( 1) the Board erred in failing to provide written findings of fact

and conclusions of law as required by the "             Administrative Act" and, thus, was in

violation of the statutory protections afforded to Coastal; and ( 2) the Board erred in

its decision to revoke Coastal' s license and exceeded its statutory authority,

constituting an abuse of discretion as the decision was not supported by a

preponderance of evidence contained in the administrative record.

                                 STANDARD OF REVIEW

        At    all   pertinent   times   hereto,   judicial     review      of     a     decision   of    an

administrative governmental agency was set forth in La.                         R. S.    49: 9645 of the

Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act, which specified that judicial review shall

be confined to the record, as developed in the administrative proceedings.                              See

Spiezio v. State Licensing Board for Contractors, 2012- 1562 ( La. App. 1st Cir.

3/ 22/ 13),   2013   WL    1189373, *    2(   unpublished),      writ denied, 2013- 0912 ( La.

5/ 31/ 13),   118    So. 3d 399 ( citing La. R. S.         49: 964( F)).    When reviewing an

administrative final decision in an adjudication proceeding,                          the district court

functions as an appellate court. Spiezio, 2013 WL 1189373 at * 2.

        Louisiana Revised Statute 49: 964( G), at the time in question, stated:

        The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case
        for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision

5 La. R.S. 49: 964 was redesignated as La. R.S. 49: 978. 1 by Acts 2022, No. 663, §           1, effective
August 1, 2022. All references in this opinion to La. R.S. 49: 964 are to the version of this statute
as it existed prior to its redesignation by Acts 2022, No. 663, §   1 and which was applicable at all
pertinent times hereto.

                                                  G
        if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the
        administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

         1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

         2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
         3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

         4) Affected by other error of law;

         5)
              Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or
        clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or

         6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as
        determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the
        court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a
        preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the
        record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the application
        of the rule,
                     where the agency has the opportunity to judge the
        credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the
       witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be
       given to the agency' s determination of credibility issues.

       The general principle governing judicial review of administrative agency
decisions is that,
                      where some evidence as reasonably interpreted supports the

agency' s determination, then the agency' s order exercising discretionary authority
should be accorded great weight and should not be overturned absent a clear

showing that the administrative action is arbitrary and capricious.         Spiezio, 2013

WL 1189373 at * 3.
                        The test for determining whether the action taken is arbitrary
and capricious is whether the action taken is reasonable under the circumstances.
Id.

       Once a final judgment is rendered by the district court, an aggrieved party
may seek review of the same by appeal to the appropriate appellate        court.   Id. at * 3

 citing La. R. S. 49: 965).
                              On review of the district court' s judgment, no deference

is owed by the court of appeal to factual findings or legal conclusions of the district
court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual
findings or legal conclusions    of the court of appeal.   Id.   Thus, an appellate court

sitting in review of an administrative agency reviews the findings and decision of

                                            7
the administrative agency and not the decision of the district court.            Martin v.

State Licensing Board for Contractors, 2014- 0963 ( La. App.             1st Cir. 4/ 10/ 15),

2015 WL 1731007, * 2 (       unpublished),   writ denied, 2015- 0919 ( La. 6/ 19/ 15),   172

So. 3d 1091.    Consequently, this court will conduct its own independent review of

the record in accordance with the standards provided in La. R.S. 49: 964( G).

Spiezio, 2013 WL 1189373 at * 3.

                                      DISCUSSION

        Louisiana Revised Statute 49: 958, at all pertinent times hereto, stated, in

pertinent   part: "   A final decision or order adverse to a party in an adjudication

proceeding shall be in writing or stated in the record. A final decision shall include

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory

language,    shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the

underlying facts supporting the findings. ..."         Although the Board provided its

final decision in writing, the written Board Action did not include findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

        Nevertheless, In re Ark -La -Tex Antique & Classic Vehicles, Inc., 2005-

1931,   p. 7 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 15/ 06), 943 So. 2d 1169, 1174, writ denied In re

Ark -
    La -Tex Antique, 2006- 2509 ( La. 1/ 12/ 07), 948 So. 2d 151 involved review of

a decision of the Board of Ethics,        which failed to expressly state the factual

findings in support of its conclusions.      On appeal, this court noted that, while the

Board therein must articulate the basis for its decision, where the findings and

reasons therefor were necessarily implicit in the record and the administrative

determination was supported and sustainable by a preponderance of the evidence,

the administrative decision was not invalid. merely because the Board failed to

explicitly articulate that which was self-evident. See also Summers v. Sutton, 428

So. 2d 1121,   1129 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1983) (" where the findings and reasons for the

Commissioner' s action are necessarily implied by the record, and where the          court' s
 study of a brief administrative record readily yields sufficient evidence to support

 the administrative determination, the court will refuse to remand for the formality
 of having the Commissioner make explicit his findings");               compare with Giallanza

 v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 412 So. 2d 1369,                   1375- 76 ( La. 1982)

   We will remand for the purpose of having the Commission make findings and

 state reasons, however, when we are unable to review the agency determination
 without them. ... `
                         while we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency' s

 action that the agency has not given ... we will uphold a decision of less than ideal

 clarity if the agency' s path may reasonably be discerned.' ...           This is not a simple

 case in which the findings and reasons for the Commission' s action are necessarily
 implied by the record."). As directed by the jurisprudence in its judicial review of

 the case,
             this court in In re Ark -La -Tex examined both the explicit and the

 implicit    factual   findings    of the     Board   of Ethics    to   determine whether its

conclusions complied with La. R.S. 49: 964( G).               See In re Ark -La -Tex, 2005-

 1931 at p. 8, 943 So.2d at 1174. We do the same herein.

        The     Board     found     Coastal             of    violations        both   La.
                                               guilty                      of                R.S.

37: 2158( A)( 9) and ( 10) and revoked its license.
                                                             At all pertinent times hereto, La.

R.S. 37: 2158( A)( 9)-( 10) stated:

       The board may revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license; issue
       cease and desist orders to stop work; or debar any person or licensee
       licensed pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter for any of the
       following causes:

        9)
             Problems relating to the ability of the contractor, its qualifying
       party,or any of its principal owners or principal shareholders to
       engage in the business of contracting, as demonstrated by their
       contracting business experience.

        10) Disqualification or debarment by any public entity.
Coastal' s arguments on appeal appear to concern the Board' s finding with regard
to La. R. S. 37: 2158( A)( 9);
                                  however, where the Board can revoke a license for any
of the causes set forth in La. R.S. 37: 2158( A),
                                                        we first address the Board' s finding

                                                 0
that Coastal was guilty of violating La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)( 10)          for disqualification or

debarment by any public entity.

        At the beginning of both hearings, at which Coastal was present and

represented     by   counsel,    the    charges    and   status   of   the   proceedings   were

summarized.
                 At the June 17, 2021 hearing, as noted above, the Board' s attorney
introduced, without objection, seven DOTD default notices issued to Coastal.                   The

default notices outlined that Coastal was placed in default on various contractual

and legal grounds including, but not limited to, the following: failure to complete
the   project   within   the   contract   time;    insolvency;    making     an   assignment    or

arranging for performance by others of all or part of the performance of the

contract without prior written approval and consent of the DOTD; making an

assignment of contract proceeds for the benefit of one or more creditors without

prior written approval and consent of the DOTD; discontinuing prosecution of the

work; failing to perform with sufficient workers, equipment, or materials to assure

prompt completion of the work; and failing to perforin the work in an acceptable

manner, and violating any provision of the contract. Each default notice directed

Coastal' s sureties, Nationwide or Arch Insurance Company, to complete the work
remaining to be done under the respective contracts and further advised "...

Coastal Bridge is hereby disqualified from bidding on any work let to contract
by the Department [ DOTD]              and from sub -contracting any work from any
contractor who is doing contract work with the Department." (                      Emphasis in

original.).

       At the June 17, 2021 hearing, counsel for Coastal           noted "[   t]here have been

disputes with DOTD ...," "
                                DOTD disqualified the company ...,"           and Coastal had

been " defaulted because of delays ...
                                                   caused by financial issues."       Coastal' s

president, Mr. Sills, testified that " the DOTD did not create the default, the bond

company created this default;" however, Mr. Sills agreed that, as a part of their

                                              10
consent agreement, another contractor would perform the work on the projects

Nationwide bonded.             Coastal offered no evidence demonstrating that it appealed

the DOTD disqualifications or that the DOTD had lifted the disqualification or

otherwise reinstated Coastal.          At the conclusion of the June 17, 2021 hearing, the

Board' s counsel described the charge, and the Board members voted on the record,

finding unanimously that Coastal was guilty of violating La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)( 10).

       Thereafter,      at the July 15, 2021 hearing, Coastal' s counsel again noted

Coastal had been " defaulted because of delays ...                 caused by financial issues,"

Coastal introduced into evidence the Consent and Release Agreement between it

and Nationwide, reflecting that Nationwide had released its claims against Coastal.

However, Coastal again offered no evidence reflecting that the DOTD had lifted

the disqualification or otherwise reinstated Coastal.             At the July 15, 2021 hearing,

the Board, ultimately, voted to revoke Coastal' s license.

        Louisiana Revised Statute 37: 2153( E)( 4),             at all pertinent times hereto, 6

stated: "
            In addition to any other duties and powers granted by this Chapter, the

board shall: ... [     s] uspend or revoke any license for any cause described in this

Chapter ..."     As outlined above, La. R. S. 37: 2158( A)( 10) stated "[            t] he board may

revoke ...     a license ...     for an    of the following causes: ... [      d] isqualification or

debarment by          any   public    entity." ( Emphasis       added.).     Our review       of the

administrative record readily yields sufficient evidence to support the Board' s

determination        that   Coastal    violated    La.   R.S.   37: 2158( A)( 10).      Where     the

documentary evidence in the administrative record established that the DOTD, a

public entity, disqualified Coastal, we conclude the findings and reasons for the

Board' s action are necessarily implied by the administrative record.

G La. R.S. 37: 2153( E)( 4) was redesignated as La. R.S. 37: 2153( F)( 3) by Acts 2022, No. 195, §   1,
effective August 1,    2022.    All references in this opinion to La. R.S. 37: 2153( E)( 4) are to the
version of this statute as it existed prior to its redesignation by Acts 2022, No. 195, §       1 and
which was applicable at all pertinent times hereto.

                                                   11
        Although disqualification by a public entity alone is a statutorily sufficient

basis    for    the   Board      to   revoke      a          contractor' s   license,   under    La.   R. S.

37: 2158( A)( 10),    we also address the Board' s conclusion that Coastal was guilty of

violating La. R.S.       37: 2158( A)( 9),     i. e.,    problems relating to the ability of the

contractor,     its qualifying party, or any of its principal owners or principal

shareholders to engage in the business of contracting, as demonstrated by their

contracting business experience.               At the June            17,    2021 hearing,   the Board' s

attorney introduced,      without     objection,             five money judgments against Coastal,

including two tax judgments enjoining Coastal from further pursuit of business and

future pursuit of business in Lafayette Parish and Vermillion Parish, respectively.
Despite admittedly being apprised of these judgments in advance,                                   Coastal

introduced no evidence of their satisfaction at the June 17, 2021 hearing.                         At the

conclusion of the June 17, 2021 hearing, after the Board' s counsel described the

charge, the Board members voted on the record, finding that Coastal was guilty of

the first charge of violating La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)(9). However, the penalty phase

was deferred to July 15, 2021, so Coastal could be allowed to present evidence of

 signed documented plans" to satisfy all judgments and evidence from a third party
firm as to its viability moving forward.

        At the July 15, 2021 hearing, Coastal introduced settlement agreements for

three of the five judgments and a compilation of Coastal' s financial statements

prepared by Garrety & Associates, L.L.C. The compilation noted Coastal' s total

assets were $
                 2, 756,916, and Coastal' s current liabilities, including judgments and
sales   tax liabilities, totaled $ 2, 751, 017,                and its long term liabilities totaled

 5, 559, 647.    The compilation identified a retained earnings ( deficit) in excess of

 11, 098, 169.    The compilation further noted "[                   b] ecause of the recurring losses
experienced      since   2017,    and   an
                                               increasing net            capital
                                                                                   deficiency,   there   is

substantial doubt as to the going concern of Coastal."                        The compilation outlined

                                                        12
the plan of Coastal' s management to mitigate this substantial doubt including, but

not limited to, the commitment of the shareholder to infuse capital,                          projects

generating a gross margin of $ 1, 026, 000,                and bidding on new projects.                The

compilation concluded as follows:

       Coastal anticipates that it will be able to operate within its forecast for
       the fiscal year 2021 and 2022. Coastal will continue to tighten its belt
       and attempt to manage costs to meet the required payment terms to
       subcontractors, vendors, and creditors.              Coastal is operating with less
       staff and minimum expenses until times are better and the revenues
       increase.  Coastal, with its long history, and commitment from its

       shareholder has a viable opportunity to fulfill its obligations, returning
       to unproved financial health and having positive cash flows from
       operations.

       At the July 15, 2021 hearing, Coastal offered the testimony of Mr. Taylor,

who testified as to the compilation outlined above,                       agreeing there has been a

significant improvement in that Coastal' s liquidity and Coastal' s current ratio ( i. e.

ability to pay its bills) is at about . 93. Mr. Taylor, however, stated that he did not

audit any financial statements, and he could not testify as to Coastal' s contractor

ability.    Mr. Taylor agreed the compilation was prepared in the best light, and it

was a fair statement that if any other things fell apart the whole thing could

collapse.
              The Board asked Mr. Taylor whether he would testify that the company

could possibly come out of this, and Mr. Taylor responded affirmatively and later

stated, "   It' s a possibility."

       Assuming Coastal could emerge financially, the Board' s Chairman sought

testimony       and   evidence      as   to   Coastal' s   ability   as    a   contractor   and   as    to

management of Coastal. Mr. Sills testified,                 deeming Coastal to be a "         capable

contractor"      based on its capabilities and continued work.                     He stated he has

agreements for bonding with bonding capacity at $                    5 million and a one million

dollar line of credit.       He testified Coastal had been keeping vendors and payroll

current since 2019, and they were successfully building quality work safely and

getting contracts.      However, referencing the people to whom Coastal owed money,

                                                    13
 the lawsuits involved, and the $ 11 million retained earnings deficit from which it

 was unknown if Coastal would be able to overcome based on the information

 presented, the Board voted to revoke Coastal' s license.

         On appeal, Coastal asserts the Board erred as a matter of law in finding it
 guilty and revoking its license. Coastal contends that, absent written findings of

 fact and conclusions of law by the Board, Coastal is left in the dark about why the
 documentary and testimonial evidence it provided was not satisfactory to avoid the
 revocation of its license.     In this regard, Coastal asserts that, despite unreasonable

 time   constraints,'    it satisfied the requests of the Board, claiming it provided

 settlement agreements for all five outstanding judgments, a copy of the Consent
 and    Release   Agreement      with    Nationwide,        financial    statements   and    reports

 demonstrating its financial ability to pay its debts, and testimony from a CPA

 detailing that Coastal would remain         a going concern.           Coastal asserts the Board

 disregarded this evidence and imposed              an   unfair,
                                                                   impossible burden in asking
 Coastal to demonstrate its ability as a contractor, despite no evidence it performed
 defective or deficient work. Coastal argues its substantial efforts to                           the
                                                                        satisfy "

Board' s ever- changing demands" were for naught as the Board abused its

discretion and exceeded its authority in revoking Coastal' s license.

        We note the administrative record is unclear with regard to the Board' s
findings as to Coastal' s financial        viability.      Notably, the Board presented no

evidence to controvert the evidence presented in the financial compilation, and as

Coastal points out, the Board' s Chairman stated he would assume Mr. Taylor was
correct in testifying Coastal would "        come out of this."          To the extent Coastal' s

7 Although not assigned as error, in the conclusion of its appellant brief, Coastal argues it was
not  provided fair notice and due process before it was found guilty of violating state licensing
statutes and its license was revoked.   We find Coastal' s arguments, in this regard, lack merit,
where Coastal had notice of the hearing and alleged violations more than thirty days in advance
of the June 17, 2021 hearing, Coastal requested and received the Board' s evidence in advance of
the hearing including the outstanding judgments          and the DOTD default notices,      and   the
administrative record does not reflect that Coastal objected to or requested a continuance of the
July 15, 2021 hearing.

                                               14
financial viability had formed the sole basis of the Board' s decision, we find, under

the circumstances presented herein, it may have been necessary to remand for the

purpose of having the Board make written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

See e. g. Giallanza, 412 So. 2d at 1375- 76.

           However, as outlined above, the Board also referenced the people to whom

Coastal owed money and the lawsuits involved, when voting to revoke its license.'

We note that only three of the five judgments have settlement agreements in place

and the terms of those settlements agreements,                      including the amount of the

payments,        are   unknown.         Coastal    introduced      no   signed    written    settlement

agreements as to the two tax judgments,' which enjoin it from further pursuit of

business and future pursuit of business in Lafayette Parish and Vermillion Parish.

Additionally, as outlined above, the DOTD default notices outline that Coastal is

disqualified from bidding on any work let to contract by the DOTD and also from

subcontracting any work from any contractor who is doing contract work with the
DOM           We find these are factors pertinent to the ability of Coastal to engage in

the business of contracting, as demonstrated by its contracting business experience.

Considering such, our review of the administrative record readily yields sufficient

evidence to support the Board' s determination that Coastal violated La. R.S.

37: 2158( A)(9).        Where the documentary evidence in the administrative record

established that Coastal has two unsatisfied judgments against it for sales and/ or

8
    Additionally, Coastal' s violation of La. R. S. 37: 2158( A)( 10) was a sufficient basis to revoke its
license.

9 In correspondence to the Board' s Compliance Director, dated July 13, 2021, Coastal' s counsel
represented Coastal had " obtained written settlement agreement or agreements to resolve all the
judgments identified in the Complaint" against it. At the July 15, 2021 hearing, Coastal' s
counsel asserted there was an agreement in principle to set a payment plan in place for both tax
judgments, and the agreement needed to be reduced to writing. He further contended the parish
had agreed to a re -audit for one of the judgments, and the amount likely would be reduced. It
appears Coastal' s counsel emailed counsel for the parishes, who expressed his clients may have a
    conceptual willingness to receive installment payments" and further outlined redacted terms he
    believe[ d] would be acceptable to each of [his] clients." In any event, signed, written settlement
agreements for the tax judgments were not introduced into evidence in the administrative
proceeding, and nothing reflects when, if at all, Coastal would be permitted to work in Lafayette
or Vermillion Parishes.

                                                    15
use tax assessments and remains enjoined from work in two parishes and is

disqualified from doing contract work or subcontract work for DOTD,                       we

conclude the findings and reasons for the Board' s action are necessarily implied by

the administrative record.

      This matter does not present complex issues for judicial review,               and the

absence of factual findings herein does not snake us unable to review the Board' s

determination and whether it is arbitrary,          capricious,      or without support by

evidence in the record.     Thus, we find the Board' s decision was not invalid merely

because it failed to explicitly articulate that which was self-evident.              After a

thorough review of the administrative record, we find the Board' s finding that

Coastal was guilty of violating La. R.S. 37: 2158( A)(9)        and (   10) and the Board' s

revocation of Coastal' s license was supported by a preponderance of the evidence

and was reasonable under the circumstances.        Accordingly, the Board' s revocation

of Coastal' s contractor' s license was not arbitrary and capricious.

                                    CONCLUSION

      After considering the record herein, the February 22, 2022 judgment, which

affirmed   the   decision   issued by   the     Louisiana    State    Licensing   Board   for

Contractors finding Coastal Bridge Company, LLC violated the laws and rules and

regulations
              governing     Louisiana   contractors    and
                                                              revoking     Coastal   Bridge

Company, LLC' s contractor' s license, is affirmed.            Costs of this appeal are

assessed to plaintiff-appellant, Coastal Bridge Company, LLC.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           16