J. Squared Plumbing Co. Inc. v. City of Atlanta

J. Squared Plumbing, Co., LLC, a subcontractor, provided labor, materials and services pursuant to the City of Atlanta’s Annual Contract for Clean Up Sewage Spills Inside Dwellings. hereinafter the Project. Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC, the general contractor, failed to pay J. Squared for its work on the Project. By the time that J. Squared sought to recover from First Seaford Surety, Inc., the surety who issued the required payment bond for J. Squared’s work, First Seaford hereinafter the Surety was insolvent. J. Squared sued then Scott and Sons and the City of Atlanta, seeking to recover $140,000 for its work on the Project.1 The trial court found that the City complied with the payment bond requirements set forth in OCGA § 36-91-91. Accordingly, the trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that J. Squared was limited to the exclusive remedy set forth in Georgia’s payment bond statutes – OCGA §§ 36-91-90 and 36-91-91. J. Squared appeals, contending that 1 the payment bond statutes do not bar it from recovering for the value of its work from the City, and 2 the City’s documents in support of its motion for summary judgment lacked an adequate foundation.2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant or denial of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.