Case: 15-15584 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15584
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-00335-LMM
NOVUM STRUCTURES, LLC,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant - Appellant,
versus
CHOATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant-Counter Claimant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 6, 2017)
Before JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY, *
District Judge.
*
Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida,
sitting by designation.
Case: 15-15584 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Novum Structures, LLC, appeals the district court’s denial of its summary
judgment motion seeking to bar an indemnity claim against it based on res
judicata. Choate Construction Company, the general contractor for the renovation
of an athletic coliseum at the University of Georgia, subcontracted to Novum the
fabrication and installation of large specialty panes of tempered glass. The
subcontract required Novum to defend and indemnify Choate against all claims for
damages concerning the panes; it also required Novum to repair and replace any
broken glass panes due to a “latent defect.”
When five panes broke after installation, the university asserted its claims
against Choate for the broken panes, and Choate in turn sought indemnity under
the subcontract from Novum in an arbitration proceeding. After the arbitration
hearing concluded 2, Choate learned that a sixth glass pane had broken. The
arbitrator awarded $673,166 in favor of Choate, and Novum paid the award.
Subsequently, a seventh glass pane broke. Choate demanded damages from
Novum for the cost to repair the sixth and seventh broken panes.
Novum filed a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Georgia, alleging the arbitrator’s award on the five broken panes had
2
The sixth glass pane broke three weeks after evidence in the arbitration closed, and a few days
before the arbitrator issued the final award. The arbitrator denied Choate’s request to reopen the
arbitration to consider evidence related to the sixth break.
2
Case: 15-15584 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Page: 3 of 4
resolved all claims against Novum for broken panes based on res judicata. Choate
removed the action to federal district court and counterclaimed for a declaratory
judgment that Novum was required to defend and indemnify Choate for the defects
in the broken panes based on the prior arbitration award. Choate also alleged a
claim for breach of the subcontract for defective glass and for failure to repair and
replace the sixth and seventh panes. Both parties moved for summary judgment on
their respective claims. The district court denied Novum’s summary judgment
motion based on res judicata, but granted to Choate summary judgment on both its
indemnity claim and on its claim for breach of the subcontract, finding Novum had
supplied defective glass and had failed to repair the defective work in the sixth and
seventh broken panes. The district court specifically noted that Novum had failed
to oppose Choate’s summary judgment motion on its counterclaim for breach of
the subcontract and had admitted that it had failed to provide Choate with any
defense or indemnification, had provided defective glass, and had failed to repair
and replace the sixth and seventh breaks.
Although Novum appealed the denial of its own summary judgment motion,
it failed to appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Choate on its
separate counterclaim for breach of contract for Novum’s provision of defective
materials and failure to repair the broken panes. “To obtain reversal of a district
court judgment that is based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must
3
Case: 15-15584 Date Filed: 10/06/2017 Page: 4 of 4
convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against [it] is incorrect.”
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
Novum limited the analysis in its initial appeal brief3 exclusively to whether
res judicata barred Choate’s claim for defense and indemnification, and did not
appeal the district court’s finding that Novum had breached the subcontract’s
separate clause requiring Novum to repair the defective materials in the sixth and
seventh breaks. An appellant who fails to challenge one of the grounds on which
the district court based its judgment is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of
that ground, and the judgment is due to be affirmed. Little v. T–Mobile USA, Inc.,
691 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
3
Novum argued for the first time in its reply brief that the arbitration award had preclusive effect
for “every type of claim” Choate could have raised. We do not address arguments raised for the
first time in a reply brief or in a perfunctory manner without support. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at
680–82.
4