Judge denies Action Construction's motion for summary judgment
In May 2008, the Southeast Texas Record reported that Action Construction sued Compro Tax to collect more than $400,000 in unpaid invoices stemming from a pair of construction contracts.
Two years later, Action Construction filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the evidence shows the company is entitled to the money.
On Tuesday, Oct. 5, 172nd District Court Judge Donald Floyd denied the motion, ruling that "there are genuine issues of material fact on substantially all of the facts" alleged by Action Construction.
Court papers show the companies entered into written contracts on May 9, 2006, and Aug. 2, 2006, to pour a concrete slab and erect a metal building on the Compro Tax property.
"Plaintiff was performing its contractual obligations and Defendant breached by failing to tender payment upon demand," Action Construction's suit states.
"Defendant's breach caused injury to Plaintiff including an overdue unpaid balance of $437,998.00, court costs and attorney's fees. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court."
After construction was well underway, Compro began changing the details of the plans, court papers say.
Action Construction claims it "tried to no avail to accommodate" Compro but the company refused to pay.
Conversely, Compro argues in its response to the motion that Action Construction failed to complete the job and comply with change orders.
Compro is represented by Beaumont attorney Kerwin Stone of the Moore Landrey law firm.
Action Construction is represented by Beaumont attorney Brett Thomas of the Roebuck & Thomas law firm.
Case No. E181-706