French v. Jinright & Ryan, P.C., Architects
Decision Date | 29 June 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83-8108,83-8108 |
Citation | 735 F.2d 433 |
Parties | James R. FRENCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JINRIGHT & RYAN, P.C. ARCHITECTS, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
John A. Barley and Bruce P. Anderson, Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Tom Young, Valdosta, Ga., William U. Norwood, Thomasville, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
This is a contractor's suit against an architect for damages due to construction delays caused by the architect. The district court granted a summary judgment for the defendant architect on the ground that a prior arbitration proceeding effectively barred the litigation of these claims because they had been litigated in the arbitration proceedings and the plaintiff had received through arbitration some satisfaction for the damages claimed. The Georgia law prohibits continued litigation of inconsistent remedies after satisfaction has been obtained. Because we cannot tell from this record whether the claims here asserted were in fact decided in the arbitration proceeding or whether the plaintiff received the satisfaction contemplated under the Georgia statute, we vacate the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
The Thomas County Board of Commissioners contracted with defendant Jinright & Ryan, P.C. Architects, for architectural services for, and to administer the construction of, additions and changes to the Thomas County Courthouse. The plaintiff James R. French was the contractor for that work.
Plaintiff French alleges in this suit that due to the acts and omissions of Jinright, he was unable to perform the work as planned, and that reliance on Jinright's erroneous representations in the design and construction documents interfered with his performance of the contract. Consequently, the plaintiff was unable to render performance in a timely fashion. French's contract was terminated July 3, 1979, by Thomas County on the recommendation of Jinright. The Board of Commissioners confirmed this decision on July 10, 1979.
Thereafter, French filed his notice of intent to arbitrate with the American Arbitration Association as required by his contract with Thomas County. The contract expressly excluded Jinright and others from being joined in such arbitration action without their written consent. Thomas County responded with an answer and counterclaim, but shortly thereafter withdrew from arbitration. French obtained an order compelling arbitration from federal district court pursuant to 9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 4.
The Construction Industry Arbitration Tribunal of the American Arbitration Association conducted the arbitration. The arbitration panel held in favor of plaintiff French and awarded him $5,500. The district court affirmed the arbitration panel's award. The issue in this case is whether that arbitration and award forecloses plaintiff French's suit against Jinright.
The district court concluded that the claims for Jinright's defaults which led to plaintiff's damage were asserted in the arbitration proceeding against Thomas County on a respondeat superior theory. It is helpful to quote at length from the district court's opinion and order.
Because the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff now seeks to recover from it substantially the same damages he previously sought from Thomas County in the arbitration proceedings arising from the same circumstances, it is necessary to compare the Plaintiff's present claim against the Defendant to that previously asserted against Thomas County.
On August 16, 1979 the Plaintiff served on Thomas County a "Notice of Intent to Arbitrate" and in this notice stated that it was the Plaintiff's intention "to arbitrate all outstanding claims in dispute between Petitioner as contractor and Respondent as owner" under the construction contract, and then the notice describes "the nature of the claims in dispute", then the notice proceeds to describe in general terms the Petitioner's contention that he was improperly delayed in the performance of the work and that his work was improperly represented to his bonding company, etc., and the notice then sets out in two paragraphs the following claims with regard to alleged wrongful acts of omission and commission on the part of the architect:
At the beginning of the arbitration proceedings the Plaintiff's counsel presented to the arbitration panel a "Brief of Petitioner" which he described as being a summary of what the Petitioner considered to be the "ultimate facts material to disposition of the issues before you" and also a statement of law that he believed to be "applicable to those facts and those issues". Several of the 21 pages of this document are devoted to a recital of the duties which were imposed upon the architect in connection with the construction and several other pages are devoted to a detailed discussion of how the architect either by acts of omission or commission was alleged to have been derelict in the performance of his duties. There is a detailed outline of how the architect failed to approve partial pay requests, failed to make arrangements for the contractor to have reasonable access to the job site, improperly ordered some of the Petitioner's subcontractors off of the job site, improperly recommended to the owner that the owner terminate the contract, and improperly eventually brought about the termination. Then this recital concludes with the statement "Thereafter, the Contractor prepared and filed his Notice of Intent to Arbitrate with the American Arbitration Association and these proceedings ensued".
In that portion of the brief submitted to the arbitrators which sets out the legal basis for the Petitioner's claims the following statement is made.
Finally, in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
TLT Const. Corp. v. A. Anthony Tappe and Associates, Inc.
...identity of causes of action, if not also of factual issues, for res judicata purposes. Contrast French v. Jinright & Ryan, P.C., Architects, 735 F.2d 433, 436 (11th Cir.1984); Carris v. John R. Thomas & Assocs., 896 P.2d 522, 528-529 (Okla.1995). Compare Wellons, Inc. v. T.E. Ibberson Co.,......
-
Hooper v. Midland Funding, LLC
... ... Saad Constr. Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C. , 851 So.2d 507, ... 520 (Ala. 2002) (emphasis ... issue sought to be precluded].”); French v ... Jinright & Ryan, P.C. Architects , 735 F.2d ... ...
-
Carris v. John R. Thomas and Associates, P.C.
...issue in the second action is a question which was actually determined in the first adjudication. 15 In French v. Jinright & Ryan, P.C., Architects, 735 F.2d 433, 436 (11th Cir.1984), a contractor sued an architect for damages due to construction delays allegedly caused by the architect. Pr......
- Murphy v. Reid