Jones Prt Const LLC v. Apopka Plaza Assoc, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
_______________
m 06-10545
_______________
JONES PARTNERS CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
APOPKA PLAZA ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
m 3:04-CV-1294
______________________________
Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and DEMOSS,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jones Partners Construction, LLC (“Jones
Partners”), sued U.S. Bank National Associa-
tion (“U.S. Bank”) for fraud, alleging that U.S.
Bank had created a false impression about
funds from a loan U.S. Bank had made to
Apopka Plaza Associates, LLC (“Apop-
ka”)SSa company that hired Jones Partners to
serve as managers on a construction project.
Jones Partners asserts that one of U.S. Bank’s
loan officers told a Jones Partners executive
about U.S. Bank’s loan to Apopka and solic-
ited Jones Partners to work on the project.
Meanwhile, this same loan officer knew that
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the loan proceeds had been exhausted almost
completely to cover up an illicit transaction
between the loan officer and an Apopka exec-
utive, leaving insufficient funds to pay Jones
Partners for its work.
The district court granted summary judg-
ment for U.S. Bank. It found that no reason-
able juror could conclude that U.S. Bank’s
conduct created a false impression that funds
would be available to pay for construction
costs because, if anything, U.S. Bank’s state-
ments conveyed the impression that this pro-
ject and loan were both in trouble. U.S.
Bank’s loan officer told Jones Partners that the
interest on the loan was “eating [Apopka]
alive” and that Apopka and U.S. Bank really
needed Jones Partners to help. These state-
ments indicate troubleSSnot a guarantee of a
loan sufficient to fund payments to Jones Part-
ners. Because the court found that U.S. Bank
did not create a false impression, it concluded
Jones Partners could not make out a case for
fraud or for fraudulent concealment.1
“This Court reviews grants of summary
judgment de novo, applying the same standard
as the district court, viewing the evidence in a
light most favorable to the non-movant.”
Fruge ex rel. Fruge v. Parker Drilling Co.,
337 F.3d 558, 560 (5th Cir. 2003). We have
carefully examined the briefs and relevant por-
tions of the record and have heard the argu-
ments of counsel. Essentially for the reasons
stated in the district court’s Memorandum
Opinion and Order, we AFFIRM.
1 Jones Partners’ fraudulent concealment claim
relied on Jones Partners’ establishing that U.S.
Bank had created a false impression.

-- 2 of 2 --