Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 August 1977
• Docket Number: No. 8878,8878
• Citation: 349 So.2d 491
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT v. HUBER, HUNT & NICHOLS, INC., et al.

Page 491

349 So.2d 491

LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT v. HUBER, HUNT & NICHOLS, INC., et al.

No. 8878.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 30, 1977.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Warren E. Mouledoux, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert E. Redmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jay H. Kern, Staff Atty., New Orleans, for relator.

Monroe & Lemann, Stephen B. Lemann, New Orleans, Dutton, Kappes & Overman, C. B. Dutton, Indianapolis, Ind., for Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc./Blout Brothers Corp., A Joint Venture, respondent.

Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr., Moise W. Dennery, New Orleans, Eugene S. Davis, St. Louis, Mo., Marcel J. Gueniot, Victor E. Stilwell, Jr., New Orleans, for Curtis and Davis Architects and Planners, Inc., Edward B. Silverstein and Associates, Inc., Nolan, Holcombe, Apatini and Seghurs and Sverdrup and Parcel and Associates, Inc., A Joint Venture, respondents.

Before STOULIG, SCHOTT and BEER, JJ.

STOULIG, Judge.

Relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans to order the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to consolidate two pending claims by the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (LSED) under separate contracts it executed in conjunction with construction of the Superdome in New Orleans.

By letter dated April 13, 1977, LSED, the owner, advised AAA of separate demands against the architects and the contractors, enclosed copies of each demand and requested consolidation of both hearings. ¹ In both demands, the 50 complaints, couched in "and/or" language, are almost identical except in two instances.

When its request for consolidation was denied by AAA, relator filed a motion in the trial court seeking an order to compel consolidation under the Louisiana Arbitration statutes (R.S. 9:4201 et seq.). On the denial of its motion to consolidate, relator applied to this court for relief under our supervisory jurisdiction. The sole issue under consideration is relator's right to have the two pending arbitrable claims consolidated. The merits of these claims are not involved.

LSED entered separate contracts with the architects and the contractors, each of which provided for arbitration of disputes under the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of AAA. Neither contract requires consolidation of arbitration demands nor do the arbitration rules address the consolidation issue.

LSED now asks this court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction it asserts is vested by the Louisiana Arbitration Law to force consolidation under a fair play/judicial economy theory.

The issue is res nova in Louisiana. The litigants have cited to us decisions from other jurisdictions that have reached divergent results in similar cases. The courts ordering consolidation of necessity either viewed the silence quoad consolidation as an implied consent to join multiple claims or imposed its supervisory jurisdiction in the name of judicial economy. While there is logic to an order that requires all complaints emanating from the same project to be heard at one time before the same forum, we are more impressed with the decisions ² that decline jurisdiction to interfere with the arbitration process on this level. Such intervention by the court, as a matter of substance, would have the effect of rewriting certain provisions of the contract between the parties and, as a matter of procedure, would tend to impede rather than expedite the...