Kerek v. Crawford Elec Supply ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30555 Document: 00515711033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 19, 2021
No. 20-30555 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Damain Kerek,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Crawford Electric Supply Company, Inc.,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:18-CV-76
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of Plaintiff
Damain Kerek’s former employer, Crawford Electric Supply Company, Inc.
(“Crawford”), rejecting Kerek’s claims under the Louisiana Wage Payment
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30555 Document: 00515711033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
No. 20-30555
Act, La. Stat. Ann. §§ 23:631–32. Kerek appealed. 1 For the following
reasons, we AFFIRM.
Kerek maintains that he was wrongfully denied a bonus after he relied
on statements by his supervisors that his branch would not be charged for the
costs of a new product line. Kerek’s bonus depended on the minimum return
on sales (“ROS”) for his branch. Kerek argues that his branch would have
met the ROS threshold if Crawford had not charged his branch for the costs
of the new product line. Under Louisiana law, a valid contract “requires
capacity, consent, a certain object, and a lawful cause.” Landers v. Integrated
Health Servs. of Shreveport, 903 So. 2d 609, 612 (La. Ct. App. 2005). Consent
requires a “meeting of the minds.” Id.After considering the evidence presented, the district court
determined that there was no “meeting of the minds” between Kerek and
Crawford regarding the removal of the costs of the new product line from the
ROS calculation, and consequently dismissed Kerek’s claim. See Kerek v.
Crawford Elec. Supply Co., Inc., No. CV 18-76-RLB, 2020 WL 4906050, at
*7–8 (M.D. La. Aug. 20, 2020). The existence of a contract is considered a
“finding of fact, not to be disturbed unless clearly wrong.” Landers, 903 So.
2d at 612. Generally, “[w]e review a district court’s findings of fact for clear
error.” Petrohawk Props., L.P. v. Chesapeake La., L.P., 689 F.3d 380, 388 (5th
Cir. 2012); see also Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1416 (5th Cir. 1995)
(reviewing a district court’s finding that there had not been a “meeting of the
minds” for clear error). On appeal, Kerek’s primary argument is that the
district court erred in finding there was no meeting of the minds.
1
The federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332, and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Case: 20-30555 Document: 00515711033 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
No. 20-30555
In an effort to urge a legal question, as to which de novo review would
be appropriate, Kerek urges us to consider whether a “meeting of the minds”
requires the parties to “concur on all details of the agreement or just on the
principal cause.” Yet, we need not decide this question because the district
court never held that the parties needed to agree on every specific detail—
nor, for that matter, did Crawford (explicitly or implicitly) make such an
argument. See Kerek, 2020 WL 4906050, at *7. Accordingly, Kerek’s appeal
presents only a fact question—whether there was a “meeting of the minds”
as to the removal of costs from the ROS calculation—that we review for clear
error.
Kerek maintains that his supervisors “promised” him that the costs
of the new product line (the “parallel wire program”) would not be charged
to his branch. Crawford, in turn, argues that such a promise was never made,
noting that Kerek “relies upon vague statements” that “f[a]ll short of rising
to the level of a legally enforceable promise.” The district court agreed with
Crawford, holding that the “testimony and evidence presented at trial d[id]
not . . . support a finding that the parties had a meeting of the minds”
regarding a potential modification to Kerek’s Bonus Plan 2 that would require
Crawford to remove the costs of the new product line. Id.We conclude that Kerek fails to show the requisite error in the district
court’s assessment. The evidence shows that Kerek’s supervisors discussed
the subject with Kerek and offered generalized assurances that they would
try to figure out a way to reallocate the expenses, but nothing required a
conclusion that there was a “meeting of the minds” as to a legal commitment
by Crawford. See Terrebonne v. La. Ass’n of Educators, 444 So. 2d 206, 210
2
The district court concluded that Kerek’s 2016 Bonus Plan was a “valid
contract” and “consider[ed] whether the parties agreed to modify the terms.” Kerek, 2020
WL 4906050, at *6.
3
Case: 20-30555 Document: 00515711033 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/19/2021
No. 20-30555
(La. Ct. App. 1983) (“Unequivocal words, expressive of mere intent, do not
make an obligation.”). In sum, the district court did not clearly err in finding
that there was no “meeting of the minds” regarding a potential modification
to a legal contract.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM. 3
3
Because we affirm the district court’s finding that there was no “meeting of the
minds,” we need not reach the other issues Kerek raised on appeal.
4