Cardinal Coil Tubing L L C v. Freedom Well Services L L C

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM RULING re 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Cardinal Coil Tubing L L C. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Cardinal's unopposed motion for summary judgment is well-grounded i n law and fact, and having complied with all requirements of La.Rev.Stat. § 9:2781, Cardinal is entitled to summary judgment in its favoron its open account claim, as well as its claims for legal interest and attorney's fees against Freedom. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 2/16/2016. (crt,Chicola, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Cardinal Coil Tubing, LLC
versus

Civil Action No. 15-01480
Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

Freedom Well Services, LLC

By Consent of the Parties

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is an unopposed1 motion for summary judgment and for attorney’s
fees filed by Plaintiff, Cardinal Coil Tubing, L.L.C. (“Cardinal”) [Rec. Doc. 16] moving the
Court for summary judgment and for entry of a Judgment ordering the defendant, Freedom
Well Services, L.L.C. (“Freedom”) to pay to Cardinal the sum of $680,611.10 and Cardinal’s
reasonable attorney’s fees.
The fact that the motion is unopposed does not necessarily mean plaintiff should
prevail on the merits. “A motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because
there is no opposition, even if failure to oppose violated a local rule. The 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 Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 362 (5th Cir. 1995)(citing Hibernia Nat'l Bank v.
Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir.1985)). However,
failure to file an opposition and statement of contested material facts requires the Court to
deem plaintiff’s statements of uncontested material facts admitted for purposes of the motion.
1

Pursuant to Local Rule L.R. 7.5W, the deadline for filing any opposition to Cardinal’s
January 10, 2016 motion was February 1, 2016. LR. 7.5.

Local Rule, LR 56.2W.
Analysis
Cardinal’s Uncontested Material Facts provide the following facts of this action. R.
16. During November and December of 2014, Cardinal provided professional services,
personnel and/or equipment to Freedom on open account. Cardinal issued the following
invoices to Freedom for payment for these services, personnel and/or equipment: (1) No. 297,
dated November 9, 2014, for $123,240.25, R. 16-2; (2) No. 313, dated December 12, 2014,
for $167,873.03, R. 16-3; (3) No. 318, dated December 16, 2014, for $124,980.02, R. 16-4;
(4) No. 319, dated December 18, 2014, for $40,155.50, R. 16-5; (5) No. 314, dated
December 21, 2014, for $120,834.05, R. 16-6; and, (6) No. 320, dated December 25, 2016,
for $103,528.25, R. 16-7.
The record indicates that Freedom provided no payment to Cardinal on any of the
aforesaid invoices which total the sum of $680,611.10. By letter dated February 7, 2015,
Cardinal sent, and Freedom received, written demand of payment of the total outstanding
sum of $680,611.10 via U.S.P.S. certified mail, return receipt requested. R. 16-8; 16-9.
Freedom failed to pay the total outstanding sum of $680,611.10 within thirty days of
receiving the February 7, 2015 letter.
The record further indicates that Freedom has not provided any evidence or identified
any specific facts to refute that Cardinal provided professional services, personnel and/or
equipment to them on open account. R. 16-10, Aff. of Kartsimas. As Freedom has not paid
the outstanding sum of $680,611.10 and has not provided any evidence or identified any

2

specific facts to refute that this amount remains due and owing to Cardinal by Freedom, the
Court finds that Freedom is liable to Cardinal for the sum of $680,611.10. Accordingly, the
Court will grant Cardinal’s motion for summary judgment.
Cardinal further asserts that it is entitled to attorney’s fees in this suit on open account,
pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2781. In Louisiana, “[a]ttorneys [sic] fees are not allowed except
where authorized by contract or statute.” State, Dep't. of Transp. and Dev. v. Wagner, 38
So.3d 240, 241 (La. 2010).
Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2781, governing suits on open accounts, 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. “Open account” shall include debts
incurred for professional services....
...
F. If the judgment creditor incurs attorney fees after judgment on the principal
demand associated with enforcement of the judgment, the judgment creditor
may obtain judgment for those attorney fees and additional court costs by
filing a rule to show cause along with an affidavit from counsel for the
judgment creditor setting forth the attorney fees incurred. If the judgment
debtor does not file with the court a memorandum in opposition at least eight
days prior to the hearing on the rule, the court may award the attorney fees and
3

court costs as prayed for without the necessity of an appearance in court by
counsel for the judgment creditor.
As provided in the foregoing, the Court has determined that it will grant Cardinal’s
motion for summary judgment finding that Freedom is liable for the full amount of the
invoices owed to Cardinal. As such, the outstanding amount owed to Cardinal constitutes an
“open account.” The invoices evidencing the debt were issued as a result of, inter alia,
Cardinal providing professional services to Freedom. Finally, the record provides that
Cardinal has complied with the requirements of La. R.S. 9:2781. Thus, an award of
attorney’s fees is appropriate in this case and Cardinal may file a rule to show cause along
with an affidavit from its counsel setting forth the attorney fees incurred.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Cardinal’s unopposed motion for
summary judgment is well-grounded in law and fact, and having complied with all
requirements of La.Rev.Stat. § 9:2781, Cardinal is entitled to summary judgment in its favor
on its open account claim, as well as its claims for legal interest and attorney’s fees against
Freedom.
Thus done and signed this 16th day of February, 2016, at Lafayette, Louisiana.

4