Navistar Financial Corporation v. BJG Logistics, L.L.C. et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Navistar Financial Corporations Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18 ) is hereby GRANTED. The Court finds that liability is now established in favor of Plaintiff against BJG Logistics, LLC and Bobby J. Gorman under the Loanand Guaranty. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 9/8/2016. (baf, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

NAVISTAR FINANCIAL
CORPORATION
v.
BJG LOGISTICS, L.L.C. and
BOBBY J. GORMAN

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-67
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Navistar Financial Corporation’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Dkt. #18). The Court, having considered the relevant pleadings, finds that the
motion should be granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants BJG Logistics, L.L.C. (“BJG”) and Bobby J. Gorman
(“Gorman”) pursuant to a Commercial Loan and Security Agreement (the “Loan”) signed by BJG
and guaranteed by Gorman.
On or around November 21, 2011, BJG, through its member, Gorman, executed the Loan in
the principal amount of $1,040,000, with total interest and charges in the amount of $132,441.12,
computed at a rate of 4.9% per annum during the term of the Loan. The Loan was payable by BJG
to Navistar in 48 consecutive monthly payments of $19,009.19, beginning December 21, 2011, with
a final balloon payment of $260,000. To secure payment of the Loan, BJG, through its member
Gorman, granted Navistar a security interest in collateral detailed in Schedule A to the Loan (the
“Collateral”). Navistar properly perfected its interest in the Collateral, and holds Certificate of Title
liens on the following vehicles, obtained by BJG with Loan proceeds:

Year Model
Serial Number
Manufacturer
Type
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJR7CN658229 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJR9CN658247 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJROCN658248 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJR2CN658252 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJR4CN658253 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJR8CN658255 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJRSCN658259 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJRSCN658262 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJR9CN658264 International Sleeper Tractor
2012 PROSTAR 122 6X4 3HSDJSJR4CN658267 International Sleeper Tractor
To induce Navistar into making the Loan, and as further security for BJG's repayment of its
indebtedness to Navistar, Gorman, BJG's member, executed a Continuing Unconditional Guaranty
dated November 21, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of the Guaranty, Gorman “absolutely and
unconditionally guarantee[d]: (a) the prompt payment of all monetary obligations of any sort…”
incurred by BJG and owed to Navistar.
During fall 2014, BJG defaulted under the terms of the Loan. BJG remained in default under
the Loan for months thereafter. On or about August 31, 2015, BJG acknowledged that it was in
default of the Loan. In an effort to avoid repossession and foreclosure, BJG proposed modifying the
terms of the Loan to facilitate BJG's continued repayment. After negotiations, Navistar and BJG
entered into a Retail Loan Modification Agreement extending the Loan maturity date and modifying
payment terms (the “Loan Modification”).
Pursuant to the terms of the Loan Modification, BJG acknowledged that as of July 31, 2015,
it was in default and indebted to Navistar in the principal amount of $484,444.28, plus late fees in
the amount of $31,311.21, and interest accruing on all amounts due and owing at a rate of 4.9% per
annum. By agreement, Navistar extended the maturity date of the Loan to October 21, 2017, which
allowed BJG to continue paying monthly installments of $19,009.19, with a final payment of only
2

$16,557.47.
Shortly after entering into the Loan Modification, BJG defaulted on its payment obligations,
ceased operations, and fell out of good standing with the state of Louisiana for failing to file its
annual report. BJG has failed to cure its defaults, and continues to owe Navistar for all amounts
outstanding. As of June 30, 2016, BJG and Gorman,. pursuant to the Guaranty, owe Navistar not
less than $576,153.99, plus interest, and all costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred during the
enforcement of the Loan and Guaranty.
On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. #18). After no
response was filed, the Court gave Defendants the opportunity to file a response on or before August
11, 2016. No response was filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims
or defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). Summary judgment is proper
if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “[show] that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The trial court must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the
party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins.
Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). The substantive law identifies which
facts are material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

3

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 247. If the movant
bears the burden of proof on a claim or defense on which it is moving for summary judgment, it must
come forward with evidence that establishes “beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of
the claim or defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the
nonmovant bears the burden of proof, the movant may discharge its burden by showing that there
is an absence of evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dall.
Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the
nonmovant must “respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts
indicating there is a genuine issue for trial.” Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at
248-49). The nonmovant must adduce affirmative evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. No “mere
denial of material facts nor…unsworn allegations [nor] arguments and assertions in briefs or legal
memoranda” will suffice to carry this burden. Moayedi v. Compaq Comput. Corp., 98 F. App’x 335,
338 (5th Cir. 2004). Rather, the Court requires “significant probative evidence” from the nonmovant
in order to dismiss a request for summary judgment supported appropriately by the movant. United
States v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 2001). The Court must consider all of the evidence,
but must refrain from making any credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. See Turner
v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks summary judgment against Defendants on liability for breach of the contract
and the guaranty claim. To prevail on a breach of contract action under Illinois law1, a plaintiff must
1

The Loan and Guaranty each provide for Illinois law to be applied in this case.
4

prove: (1) an offer and acceptance; (2) consideration; (3) definite and certain terms of the contract;
(4) Plaintiff’s performance; (5) a breach; and (6) damage resulting from the breach. Brown & Kerr,
Inc. v. American Stores Props., 306 III. App.3d 1023, 1030, 715 N.E.2d 804, 810 (1st Dist. 1999).
The uncontested summary judgment evidence establishes these elements entitling Plaintiff
to summary judgment as to the liability of BJG and Gorman under the Loan and Guaranty.
.

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Navistar Financial Corporation’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Dkt. #18) is hereby GRANTED. The Court finds that liability is now
established in favor of Plaintiff against BJG Logistics, LLC and Bobby J. Gorman under the Loan
and Guaranty.
SIGNED this 8th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5