Second Circuit Ruling Deny’s Mandamus Relief Due to Architect Discretion on Payments Due

Case: Bossier Parish v. Boggs & Poole Contracting Group Inc., 56,765-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/25/26)

Authors: Christopher K. LeMieux and John E. B. Ransone

In Bossier, The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed the denial of Boggs & Poole’s (“B&P”) petition for a writ of mandamus seeking final payment for the construction of a new central branch public library in Bossier Parish (“Bossier”). The court held mandamus was not available where the project architect had not approved the final payment application and the contract provided that the architect may withhold a final certificate of payment.

Background 

On October 6, 2021, B&P agreed to construct the library with substantial completion to be reached 365 days from the start of the work. That amount was later increased by change orders and the substantial completion date was extended upon request of B&P. The architect, Prevot Design Group (“Prevot”) issued a certificate of substantial completion, which was accepted by the owner and recorded in the mortgage records. The clerk of court subsequently issued a clear lien certificate and the library opened on March 11, 2024. Bossier paid B&P $8,715,977.00, leaving a balance of $626,378.87 unpaid. The contract required final payment to be made when (1) B&P fully performed the contract and (2) a final certificate of payment has been issued by the architect. B&P submitted a final payment application to Prevot and later requested that Bossier pay the total contract price less the value of certain punch list items. Prevot did not approve the final payment application citing Bossier’s liquidated damages exposure and unresolved issues with outstanding architectural and civil items.

Bossier Files Suit and B&P Counters with Reconventional Demand and 3rd Party Demand

Bossier Parish filed suit against B&P alleging it owed liquidated damages for 151 days of unexcused delay and damages for failing to install a dry pipe sprinkler system as required in the contract. Bossier further alleged B&P failed to complete several items of work and that there were construction defects caused by B&P’s failure to follow the project’s plans and specifications. Bossier also sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable to B&P for the unpaid balance because of the damages owed by B&P, and sought damages for the cost to complete the project and repair all the construction defects, an amount that would exceed the outstanding balance owed to B&P because of B&P’s breach of the construction contract.

B&P answered and filed a reconventional demand against Bossier seeking the unpaid balance due under the construction contract, delay damages, attorney fees and interest; and a third-party demand naming Bossier, Prevot, EMA Engineering and Consulting Inc. (“EMA”), and Civil Design Group LLC (“Civil Design”) as third party defendants. B&P asserted a claim against Bossier, Prevot, and Civil Design for declaratory relief related to a design defect; and sought a declaratory judgment against Bossier, Prevot, and EMA that the project specifications called for the installation of a wet sprinkler system.

B&P sent a final demand letter to Bossier for the remaining balance with an affidavit of project completion, stating that it had complied with the requirements of the contract necessary to obtain final payment. On July 29, 2025, B&P filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking final payment under the construction contract. The trial court ruled that mandamus was not proper at that time as the contract required approval by the architect, which was not given.

B&P Appeals the Trial Court’s Ruling That Mandamus Was Not Proper At That Time

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment denying the petition for mandamus. The court held that mandamus is available only when payment is due under the contract and not where the contract affords discretion in approving payment. Applying that rationale, the court interpreted Subsection (D) of La. R.S. 38:291 to allow mandamus only when final payment is due under the contract, and found it was not due here because the architect, within its discretion, withheld approval. The court also held the contract’s terms requiring architect approval did not violate Subsection (C)’s anti-waiver clause because there was no express waiver of statutory protections.

Takeaway

Bossier confirms that the use of mandamus by contractors in Public Works projects is limited to the time payment is due under the construction contract. If the contract provides the public entity or architect discretion to approve final payment for the project, that payment can be withheld even after a certificate of substantial completion is accepted by the owner if the payment is not approved.  This ruling in regards to a public entity’s discretion defeating mandamus follows the recent First Circuit cases of Stevens Construction and LA Contracting.