Louisiana Fourth Circuit Affirms Mandamus Relief and Statutory Interest Awards Against City of New Orleans
Authors: Christopher K. LeMieux and Emilia W. Duncan
In a recent decision, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a district court’s judgment ordering the City of New Orleans to immediately pay over $750,000.00 in statutory interest to a public works contractor for late‑paid invoices under multiple street paving contracts. Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. Cantrell, No. 2025‑CA‑0703 (La. App. 4 Cir. Apr. 28, 2026).
The decision builds upon the Fourth Circuit’s prior ruling in Drennan I and provides important guidance on invoicing procedures for public projects, the operation of La. R.S. 38:2191, the limits of res judicata under La. R.S. 38:2191, and the consequences of untimely procedural objection.
Background
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. (“WCD”) served as the contractor on six City of New Orleans public works street paving projects awarded between 2017 and 2021: RR061, RR067, RR109, RR115, RR118, and RR133. For each project, the City employed a separate consulting engineering firm responsible for overseeing construction, reviewing quantities, and processing contractor pay applications before recommending payment to the City’s Department of Public Works.
Although the City ultimately paid WCD the principal contract balances on all six projects, disputes arose over statutory interest allegedly owed due to late payment of numerous invoices under La. R.S. 38:2191.
Drennan I
This appeal is the second iteration of a dispute between the parties. In Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. Cantrell, 23-0193 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/25/23) (“Drennan I”), WCD filed a mandamus action seeking statutory interest on seven late-paid invoices under contract RR133. The parties agreed to litigate those invoices as a test case, with the expectation that remaining disputes could later be resolved.
In Drennan I, the Fourth Circuit held that when a contractor is required to submit pay applications to a consulting engineer acting as the City’s agent, the forty‑five‑day payment period under La. R.S. 38:2191(B) begins when the contractor submits the invoices to the engineer—not when the invoices are later uploaded to a municipal payment portal. The court ultimately awarded statutory interest on all seven invoices.
After that ruling, the parties were unable to resolve WCD’s remaining statutory‑interest claims, leading to the second mandamus action at issue.
Present Case
In November 2024, WCD filed a second petition for writ of mandamus seeking statutory interest on additional late‑paid invoices across all six projects. Following trial, the Civil District Court made the alternative writ of mandamus peremptory and ordered the City to immediately pay $750,966.53 in statutory interest. The City appealed and raised three assignments of error: (1) the district court erred in failing to consider the express contract provisions of RR061, RR115, and RR118, outlining invoicing and payment procedures for the public works projects at issue; (2) the district court erred in considering statutory interest claims related to RR133 that should have been brought in WCD’s previous mandamus action—Drennan I— and are accordingly barred by La. R.S. 13:4231; and (3) the district court erred by ordering the City to “immediately pay” WCD unappropriated sums.
Assignment of Error No. 1
The City argued that the district court failed to consider express contract provisions in RR061, RR115, and RR118 requiring WCD to submit invoices electronically through the City’s supplier portal (BRASS), and the statutory payment clock should not begin until that upload occurred. The Fourth Circuit rejected that argument and upheld the district court’s judgment.
Assignment of Error No. 2
The City next argued that WCD was required to bring all RR133-related statutory-interest claims in Drennan I and that any additional claims were barred by res judicata. The district court rejected this argument.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, emphasizing two points. First, the record supported the finding that the parties agreed to litigate only a subset of invoices in Drennan I and that exceptional circumstances justified relief from res judicata. Second, La. R.S. 38:2191 contemplates multiple proceedings during the life of a public contract, and Louisiana jurisprudence recognizes that contractors may bring separate actions for each late‑paid invoice—even when those invoices arise from the same project. As a result, WCD’s additional RR133 claims were not barred by res judicata.
Assignment of Error No. 3
Finally, the City argued that the district court lacked authority to order immediate payment of statutory interest because the funds were not specifically appropriated. La. R.S. 38:2191(D) authorizes mandamus to compel payment of sums due under a public contract, up to the amount appropriated.
The Fourth Circuit rejected this position. Relying on Drennan I and subsequent jurisprudence, the Fourth Circuit held that a public entity may consent to mandamus proceedings for statutory-interest claims. Critically, the Fourth Circuit also held, where a contractor includes claims for unappropriated amounts and the public entity does not timely object by raising a dilatory exception of unauthorized use of summary proceeding or improper cumulation of actions, then any procedural objection is waived.
What This Means for Public Works Contractors and Public Entities
This decision reinforces several important principles under Louisiana’s Public Works Act:
- Start of the 45-Day Payment Clock
For public works projects where contracts and practice require submission of pay applications to a consulting public entity engineer for approval, the 45-day payment period under La. R.S. 38:2191(B) begins when the contractor submits its request for payment to the consulting engineer—not when the invoice is later processed through an internal public entity payment portal.
- Multiple Invoices, Multiple Claims
Under La. R.S. 38:2191, a contractor has a statutory right to bring separate actions for each late-paid invoice. Even when multiple invoices arise from the same project, separate claims are not barred by res judicata.
- Procedural Objections to Mandamus Can Be Waived, If Not Timely Raised
Public entities may waive objections to mandamus relief for statutory interest, including payment of unappropriated sums, by consenting to the procedure or failing to raise timely procedural objections. Participation in a mandamus proceeding can support an order requiring immediate payment.
In sum, the Fourth Circuit’s decision reinforces the protective purpose of La. R.S. 38:2191 and underscores that public entities cannot delay payment and avoid statutory interest by implementing internal processing practices that are outside a contractor’s control. For contractors, the case highlights the importance of documenting invoice submission practices and preserving statutory-interest claims.
