Transp. & Logistical Servs. v. H & E Equip. Servs.

TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICAL SERVICES, INC. v. H & E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.

Civil Action No. 21-00118-BAJ-SDJ

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

March 21, 2022

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This action seeks to recover $67, 860.00 due on an open account plus statutory attorney's fees for the prosecution and collection of Plaintiff's claim, pursuant to La. R.S § 9:2781. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 7). Defendant opposes Plaintiff's Motion, but has failed to direct the Court to any evidence supporting its position. (Doc. 8). For reasons to follow, Plaintiff's Motion will be granted, and judgment will be entered in Plaintiff's favor for $67, 860.00, the full amount due on Defendant's account. The Court will withhold judgment on Plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees pending Plaintiff's submission of a motion for costs and fees consistent with the requirements of Local Rule 54.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Undisputed Facts

The following “facts” are drawn from Plaintiff's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts and appended exhibits (Doc. 7-6), and deemed admitted pursuant to Local Rule 56(f), due to Defendant's failure to submit a responsive opposing statement of material facts that meets the requirements of Local Rule 56(c).^[1] Plaintiff provided freight brokerage and transportation logistical services to Defendant pursuant to a Broker Agreement dated May 17, 2018. (Doc. 7-6 at ¶ 1; Doc. 7-5). Plaintiff's President, Jason King, executed the Broker Agreement on Plaintiff's behalf. (Doc. 7-5 at 3).

Between March 3 and April 28, 2020, Plaintiff provided services to Defendant resulting in 54 separate invoices totaling $67, 860.00. (Doc. 7-6 at ¶¶ 2, 4; Doc. 7-2 at ¶¶ 2, 3, 7; Doc. 7-3; Doc. 7-4). To date, these invoices remain unpaid. (Doc. 7-6 at ¶ 4; Doc. 7-2 at ¶ 7).

B. Relevant Procedural History

Plaintiff initiated this action on February 24, 2021, seeking to recover the unpaid $67, 860.00 due on the 54 invoices, plus statutory attorney's fees, pursuant to La. R.S. § 9:2781. (Do c. 1). On April 27, 2021, Defendant submitted its Answer, generally denying any liability. (Doc. 4).

On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff submitted the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7). As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and Local Rule 56(b)(1), Plaintiff submitted a 4-paragraph list of “uncontested material facts” mirroring the facts set forth above, supported by the sworn affidavit of Mr. King. (Doc. 7-2). Mr. King's affidavit attests that “he has personal knowledge of [Plaintiff's] practices and regularly conducted activities, ” and that all of the facts set forth in his affidavit are “true and correct, and based upon my personal knowledge or upon the contents of [Plaintiff's] business records.” (Doc. 7-2 at ¶¶ 1, 8). Appended to Mr. King's Affidavit are two exhibits culled from Plaintiffs' regular business records: (1) a spreadsheet compiling Defendant's 54 unpaid invoices, (Doc. 7-3); and (2) copies of the unpaid invoices themselves, (Doc. 7-4). Plaintiff has also provided a copy of the underlying Broker Agreement executed by Mr. Smith. (Doc. 7-5).

On June 4, 2021, Defendant submitted its opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc. 10). Notably, Defendant's Opposition does not deny that Defendant owes Plaintiff $67, 860.00. Instead, Defendant objects to Plaintiff's summary judgment evidence, arguing that Mr. King's affidavit “is deficient because 1) the facts to which Jason King attests are not based upon his personal knowledge; and 2) the supporting documentation to the attached invoices do not indicate the amounts charged are accurate.” (Doc. 10 at 5). Alternatively, Defendant posits that Plaintiff has “breached numerous terms and conditions of the [Broker] Agreement, ” thus excusing Defendant's debt. (Id. at 6-7).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that the Court may grant summary judgment only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). If the movant bears its burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of fact, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.'” Id. at 587. Stated differently, “[i]f the party with the burden of proof cannot produce any summary judgment evidence on an essential element of his claim, summary judgment is required.” Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 793 (5th Cir. 1990).

B. Discussion

Louisiana's open account statute provides, in pertinent part:

A. When any person fails to pay an open account within thirty days after the claimant sends written demand therefor correctly setting forth the amount owed, that person shall be liable to the claimant for reasonable attorney fees for the prosecution and collection of such claim when judgment on the claim is rendered in favor of the claimant. Citation and service of a petition shall be deemed written demand for the purpose of this Section.

…

D. For the purposes of this Section … “open account” includes any account for which a part or all of the balance is past due, whether or not the account reflects one or more transactions and whether or not at the time of contracting the parties expected future transactions.

La. R.S. § 9:2781. Additionally, Louisiana courts interpreting the open account statute have held that “an open account necessarily involves an underlying agreement between the parties on which the debt is based, such that where there is no contractual relationship between the parties, there can be no recovery on an open account basis.” Louisiana Mach. Co., LLC v. Bihm Equip. Co., 2019-1081 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/10/21), 329 So.3d 317, 324 (citing authorities). “Moreover, the mere creation of a debt owed to a party does not give rise to an action on an open account. Inherent in the concept of an open account is that the account is for services or goods rendered.” Id. (citing authorities). Finally, the plaintiff must establish that the account was kept in the ordinary course of business and that the debt owed is accurate. Seale & Ross, P.L.C. v. Holder, 2019-1487 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/3/20), 310 So.3d 195, 200.

“Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the debtor to prove the inaccuracy of the account or to prove that the debtor is entitled to certain credits.” Id.

Here, Mr. King's affidavit and accompanying regular business records establish all elements of Plaintiff's prima facie case: that is, (1) a contractual relationship (2) whereby Plaintiff agreed to provide services to Defendant and Defendant agreed to pay for such services; (3) 54 invoices accurately totaling $67, 860.00 evidencing Plaintiff's services rendered between March 3 and April 28, 2020; (4) Defendant's failure to pay for these services for a period greater than thirty days; and (5) Plaintiff's written demand, in the form of citation and service of Plaintiff's original Complaint.

Thus, the burden shifts to Defendant “to prove the inaccuracy of the account or to prove that [it] is entitled to certain credits.” Seale & Ross, P.L.C., 310 So.3d at 200. Here, as indicated above, Defendant does not deny owing Plaintiff $67, 860.00, and has not attempted to show that Plaintiff's accounting is inaccurate or that it is entitled to credit or offset. Instead, Defendant seeks merely to discredit Plaintiff's summary judgment evidence, arguing that Mr. King's affidavit “is deficient”-and therefore cannot support summary judgment-“because 1) the facts to which Jason King attests are not based upon his personal knowledge; and 2) the supporting documentation to the attached invoices do not indicate the amounts charged are accurate.” (Doc. 10 at 5). Alternatively, Defendant contends that its debt is excused by Plaintiff's alleged breach of certain provisions contained in the Broker Agreement. (Id. at 6-7). The Court is not persuaded by Defendant's objections.

Defendant's first objection-that Mr. King's affidavit is not based on personal knowledge-fails on multiple levels. First, and most obvious, Mr. King swears otherwise, stating in his affidavit that as Plaintiff's President “he has personal knowledge of [Plaintiff's] practices and regularly conducted activities, ” and that all of the facts set forth in his affidavit are “true and correct, and based upon my personal knowledge or upon the contents of [Plaintiff's] business records.” (Doc. 7-2 at ¶¶ 1, 8).

As indicated above, supra fn. 1, Defendant offers no evidence to contradict Mr. King's sworn statements, but instead resorts to conjecture, asserting “[i]t is clear that Mr. King is not the person who has actual ‘knowledge of the acts and events' of H&E's disputed account with TLS.” (Doc. 10 at 5). Essentially, Defendant invites the Court to throw out Mr. King's affidavit and to deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment based on hunch. That is something the Court expressly cannot do at the summary judgment stage. See Wells v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 885 F.3d 885, 889 (5th Cir. 2018) (“Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. We resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” (quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted)).

Further and in any event, Federal Rule of Evidence...