Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company v. Anders
Filing
45
ORDER & REASONS that Plaintiff Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company's 44 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 5/28/19. (dno)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GULF COAST BANK AND TRUST CO.
*
*
*
*
*
*
VERSUS
HOWARD G. ANDERS
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-12312
SECTION “L” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment. R. Doc. 44. For
the reasons that follow, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
This breach of contract action arises out of a Receivables Purchase Agreement (“RPA”)
between Plaintiff Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company and Newberry Bakers, Inc. (which is not a
party to this case). Defendant Howard Anders signed a Limited Guaranty agreeing to be solidarily
liable for Newberry’s obligations under the RPA. Gulf Coast sued Anders for his alleged breach
of the Limited Guaranty, and now moves for summary judgment. The motion is unopposed.
II.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). A genuine issue of
material fact exists if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1996). “[U]nsubstantiated assertions,”
1
“conclusory allegations,” and merely colorable factual bases are insufficient to defeat a motion for
summary judgment. See Hopper v. Frank, 16 F.3d 92, 97 (5th Cir. 1994); Anderson, 477 U.S. at
249-50. In ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court may not resolve credibility issues or
weigh evidence. See Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991).
Furthermore, a court must assess the evidence, review the facts and draw any appropriate
inferences based on the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Daniels
v. City of Arlington, Tex., 246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2001).
The Court may not grant Gulf Coast’s motion for summary judgment “merely because it
is unopposed.” Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 468 (5th Cir. 2010). Indeed, “[t]he
movant has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and, unless
he has done so, the court may not grant the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed.”
Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steep Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1995).
Having reviewed the evidence and arguments submitted by Gulf Coast, the Court finds that
Gulf Coast’s unopposed motion has merit. Under the terms of the Limited Guaranty, Texas law
controls. Gulf Coast is entitled to summary judgment if it shows “(1) the existence and ownership
of a guaranty contract; (2) the terms of the underlying contract by the holder; (3) the occurrence
of the conditions upon which liability is based; and (4) the failure or refusal to perform by the
guarantor.” Chahadeh v. Jacinto Med. Grp., P.A., 519 S.W.3d 242, 246 (Tex. App. 2017).
a. The Underlying Contract – the Receivables Purchase Agreement
In September 2016, Gulf Coast and Newberry Bakers entered in to a Receivables Purchase
Agreement (“RPA”). The RPA entails an agreement whereby Newberry would, among other
things, occasionally offer to sell its unpaid accounts receivable to Gulf Coast and, in exchange,
2
Gulf Coast would purchase certain unpaid receivables in its sole discretion. The RPA stated that
all “invoices related to all of the Receivables … shall set forth the Lockbox Address as its sole
address for payment. [Newberry] shall establish the lock box with [Gulf Coast] under [Gulf
Coast’s] exclusive control using the Lockbox Address and shall request in writing or otherwise
take reasonable steps to ensure that all payments be sent directly to such Lockbox.” R. Doc. 44-2
at 1-2. It also required Newberry to deliver to Gulf Coast “any payment or proceeds that it may
receive with respect to any Receivable Asset” within one business day following Newberry’s
receipt thereof. Id. at 2. If Newberry failed to do so, it became liable to Gulf Coast for a Misdirected
Payment Fee. Id.
The RPA also required each Receivable offered for sale to be free from any defenses,
disputes, offsets, counterclaims, or rights of return or cancellation. Newberry’s failure to abide by
its obligations under the RPA constitutes an “Event of Default,” and Newberry becomes “obligated
to repurchase” the Receivable.
As collateral for its obligations under the RPA, Newberry granted to Gulf Coast a
continuing first priority security in and to all of Newberry’s current and future “(i) accounts, chattel
paper, other Receivables, instruments (including promissory notes), investment property,
documents, and general intangibles; including without limitation all reserve accounts, Residual
Payments, credits and reserves, and letter-of credit rights, (ii) all deposit accounts, (iii) all
equipment and inventory, and (iv) all proceeds from any of the foregoing” (the “Collateral”). R.
Doc. 1-1.
Under the RPA, Newberry expressly warrants and represents that “the Collateral is not
subject to, and is free and clear of, any lien, claims, pledge, security, or encumbrance of any kind,
3
other than those granted to [Gulf Coast]” under the RPA. R. Doc. 44-2 at 3. These representations
and warranties are “continuing in nature and … remain in full force and effect until all obligations
and sums owing to [Gulf Coast] by [Newberry] have been fully performed, paid and satisfied,
whether or not [the RPA] is canceled or terminated.” Id. The RPA provides that an Event of Default
occurs when “any warranty of representation [in the RPA] proves to be false in any way, however
minor.” Id.
b. Anders’s Guaranty of the RPA
Anders was Newberry’s president. In October 2016, he executed a Limited Guaranty, in
which he “absolutely and unconditionally agree[d] to … guarantee the prompt and punctual
payment, performance and satisfaction” of certain obligations under the RPA (the “Limited
Guaranty”). Under the Limited Guaranty, Anders is liable for any failure by Newberry to deliver
“all payments or proceeds received by [Newberry] with respect to any [Receivable] which [are]
not delivered to [Gulf Coast] with the one (1) Business Day delivery deadline provided in the
RPA.” Id. Anders also guaranteed the prompt and punctual payment, performance, and satisfaction
of all of Newberry’s “RPA Warranty Obligations,” which, under the terms of the Limited
Guaranty, means “the obligations and liabilities of [Newberry] in connection with its warranty
under the RPA that each Factored Receivable … is a bona fide existing obligation of the account
debtor thereunder created by the sale and delivery of goods or the rendition of services in the
ordinary course of [Newberry’s] business, that is unconditionally owed and that the account
debtor’s payment obligations is not and will not be subject to any defenses, disputes, offsets,
counterclaims, or rights of return or cancellation.”
4
The Limited Guaranty provides that Anders’s “obligations and liability under [the Limited
Guaranty] shall be on a ‘solidary’ or ‘joint and several’ basis along with [Newberry] to the same
degree and extent as if [Anders] had been and/or will be a co-principal obligor and/or co-maker of
the RPA Warranty Obligations.”
c. Trigger of Obligations under the RPA
In October 2016, Gulf Coast sent a Notification of Change Remittance to Wal-Mart, one
of Newberry’s account debtors, notifying it that “[t]o the extent that [it is] now indebted or may in
the future become indebted to [Newberry], payment thereof is to be made to [Gulf Coast], for the
account of [Newberry].” Id. at 5. Notwithstanding the RPA’s requirement that payments on all
receivables were to be sent directly to Gulf Coast, Anders caused Wal-Mart to pay Newberry
instead. Newberry received payments and proceeds with respect to one or more of its Receivables
for the Wal-Mart account, but failed to deliver those payments and proceeds to Gulf Coast (the
“Misdirected Accounts”). Newberry’s failure to comply with its obligations under the RPA
constitutes an Event of Default. Payment with respect to the Misdirected Accounts was received
by Newberry, but was not delivered to Gulf Coast within one business day as required by the RPA.
The full payment of Misdirected Accounts is guaranteed by Anders as part of the RPA Warranty
Obligations.
Further, certain accounts were rejected for payment by the account debtor because of an
alleged offset, credit, or other defense, which violated Newberry’s warranty under the RPA that
each Receivable is free from any defenses, disputes, offsets, counterclaims, or rights of return or
cancellation. Payment of the Disputed Accounts is guaranteed by Anders as part of the RPA
Warranty Obligations.
5
d. Anders’s Failure to Perform
Finally, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Anders has failed or refused to
perform his obligations under the Limited Guaranty. Newberry breached its obligations under the
RPA and, despite the Limited Guaranty, Anders did not make full payment of the Misdirected
Accounts or Disputed Accounts to Gulf Coast. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material
fact, and Gulf Coast is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its breach of the Limited Guaranty
claim against Anders.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Gulf Coast’s unopposed motion for summary
judgment (R. Doc. 44) is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of May, 2019.
________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?