IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30379
Summary Calendar
WOODROW WILSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
Appellant,
versus
HANCOCK BANK OF LOUISIANA,
Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-1850
--------------------
February 19, 2003
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This case arises from a dispute over the requirements of a
consent agreement entered among Rabalais Masonry, Inc., Woodrow
Wilson Construction Company, Inc. (appellant), and Hancock Bank
of Louisiana (appellee). The appellant contends that a portion
of a payment that it made to appellee on behalf of Rabalais,
pursuant to the terms of the consent agreement, was made in
error, and seeks the return of such sum.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
-1-
On August 17, 2001, the bankruptcy court granted appellee’s
motion to dismiss appellant’s claim, premised upon La. Civ. C.
arts. 2298 (enrichment without cause) and 2299 (payment of a
thing not owed), and denied appellant’s motion to amend its
complaint. The district court, acting in its appellate capacity,
affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court on March 7, 2002.
Although we are sorely tempted to dismiss this appeal with
prejudice for the appellant’s failure to adequately brief the
issues as required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
we will give the appellant the benefit of the doubt and rule on
the merits. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6) (requiring “the
contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, and the
reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes,
and parts of the record relied on.”) (emphasis added).
It is well-settled that we review the decision to grant a
motion to dismiss de novo. Copeland v. Wasserstein, Parella, &
Co. Inc., 278 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir. 2002). The central issue
is whether the appellant’s complaint, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the appellant, states a valid claim for relief.
Id. We review a court’s decision to deny a motion to amend for
abuse of discretion. Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234
F.3d 863, 872 (5th Cir. 2000).
After reviewing the record and considering the arguments
presented, we conclude that, for the reasons given in the careful
-2-
opinions of both the bankruptcy and district court judges, the
appellant has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted.
Further, the refusal to permit the appellant to amend its
complaint was appropriately denied on the basis of futility. See
Stripling, 234 F. 3d at 872 (holding that it is within a district
court’s discretion to deny a motion to amend if the amended
complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted).
Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the
complaint and denying the motion to amend is AFFIRMED.
-3-