Bear Industries, Inc. v. Nature Matters, LLC
This text of 994 So. 2d 155 (Bear Industries, Inc. v. Nature Matters, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
BEAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
v.
NATURE MATTERS, L.L.C., DILAN LANDRY, AND TIRA M. LEBLANC
Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit.
CRAIG KASTER, Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee, Bear Industries, Inc.
DANNIE P. GARRETT, III, Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Tira M. LeBlanc.
Before: KUHN, GUIDRY, and GAIDRY, JJ.
KUHN, J.
In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court erred in confirming a default judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Bear Industries, Inc., and against defendant-appellant, Tira M. LeBlanc. Because we find that Bear Industries established a prima facie case that supported the confirmation of default judgment, we affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 15, 2007, Bear Industries filed suit against defendants, Nature Matters, L.L.C., Dilan Landry, and LeBlanc, claiming they were liable in solido "in the full sum of $37,977.72, together with 18% interest from date due until paid, along with 25% attorney's fees and for all costs of these proceedings." The petition further alleged: 1) Bear Industries provided limestone materials to the defendants on account from May 24, 2007, to July 6, 2007, as reflected on a statement of account attached to the petition; 2) the sums have been due and owing to Bear Industries since August 5, 2007; and 3) Landry and LeBlanc executed a credit application and personal guaranty (also attached to the petition as an exhibit), agreeing to be personally obligated for the debt of Nature Matters.
On October 4, 2007, and October 16, 2007, Bear Industries obtained preliminary default judgments against Landry and Nature Matters, respectively. On October 19, 2007, a judgment confirming these default judgments ordered judgment in favor of Bear Industries and against Landry and Nature Matters, in solido, in the amount of $37,977.72, together with 18% interest thereon from August 5, 2007, until paid, $5,000 in attorney's fees, and costs of the proceedings.
In a motion and order to appoint a private process server, counsel for Bear Industries stated that a sheriff's return indicated that despite due and diligent effort to serve the petition on LeBlanc, the sheriff was unable to effect service as requested. On October 3, 2007, Bear Industries obtained an order appointing Lisa Fazio as private process server to serve the citation and petition on LeBlanc. Fazio's service return indicates that LeBlanc was personally served with Bear Industries' petition and its request for admission of facts on October 25, 2007. However, based on our review of the record and on the January 3, 2008 clerk of court's certificate, LeBlanc failed to file any responsive pleadings after service of process.
On November 16, 2007, Bear Industries obtained a preliminary default judgment against LeBlanc, and on January 9, 2008, the trial court confirmed the default judgment, signing a judgment in favor of Bear Industries and against Leblanc, in the amount of $37,977.72, with 18% interest thereon from August 5, 2007 until paid, $3,000.00 in attorney's fees, and costs of the proceedings.[1] LeBlanc has appealed, claiming: 1) Bear Industries failed to allege the facts necessary to establish LeBlanc's liability under the alleged personal guaranty; and 2) Bear Industries' evidence adduced at the confirmation of the preliminary default judgment was insufficient to establish a prima facie case against Leblanc.
II. ANALYSIS
A judgment by default may be entered against a defendant who fails to answer within the time prescribed by law. La. C.C.P. art. 1701A.[2] Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1702 specifies the procedure and evidence necessary to confirm a default. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1702A, B(1), and C govern when a demand is based on a conventional obligation.[3]
In a confirmation hearing on a default judgment, a plaintiff must present competent evidence that convinces the court that it is more probable than not that he would prevail in a trial on the merits. Signlite, Inc. v. Northshore Service Center, Inc., 05-2444 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/9/07), 959 So.2d 904, 906-907. When the confirmation of default judgment recites that plaintiff has produced due proof in support of its demand and that the law and evidence favor plaintiff and are against the defendant, and there is no note of evidence regarding parol testimony, there is a presumption that the default judgment has been rendered on sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and is correct. Ascension Builders, Inc. v. Jumonville, 262 La. 519, 527, 263 So.2d 875, 878 (1972). The defendantappellant has the burden of overcoming that presumption. Assamad v. Percy Square and Diamond Foods, L.L.C., 07-1229 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/29/08), ___ So.2d ___.[4] In the instant case, because the judgment confirming the default provides that Bear Industries produced due proof in support of its demand and the law and evidence are in its favor, the presumption of the validity of the confirmation of default judgment applies.
When reviewing a confirmation of default judgment, an appellate court is restricted to determining whether the record contains sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case. Grevemberg v. G.P.A. Strategic Forecasting Group, Inc., 06-0766 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/9/07), 959 So.2d 914, 918.
LeBlanc asserts on appeal that Bear Industries failed to establish the authenticity of her signature on the personal guarantee. However, Bear Industries served on Leblanc a request for admissions of fact, which sets forth the following specific requests:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OF FACT NO. 1:
LeBlanc executed the credit application and personal guaranty attached to the petition as Exhibit P2.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OF FACT NO. 2:
Petitioner provided limestone materials to the defendants between May 24, 2007 through July 6, 2007 valued at $37,977.72.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OF FACT NO. 3:
The defendants currently owe the petitioner $37,977.72. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS OF FACT NO. 4:
The sums have been due and owing to the petitioner since August 5, 2007.
A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the admission of the truth of any relevant matters of fact. La C.C.P. art. 1466. Generally, the matter is deemed admitted if the party to whom the request is directed does not respond within 15 days after service of the request. La. C.C.P. art. 1467. Any matter deemed admitted under article 1467 is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. La. C.C.P. art. 1468. The court may permit withdrawal of an admission when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal of the admission will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits. La. C.C.P. art. 1468; Prestage v. Clark, 97-0524 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/28/98), 723 So.2d 1086, 1090, writ denied, 99-0234 (La. 3/26/99), 739 So.2d 800.
The record establishes that the requests for admission were served on LeBlanc, along with the Bear Industries' petition on October 25, 2007, and that LeBlanc failed to file any responsive pleadings prior to confirmation of the default judgment. Further, LeBlanc filed no motion to withdraw these admissions. Thus, these facts are deemed admitted and constitute prima facie
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
994 So. 2d 155, 2008 WL 4870335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bear-industries-inc-v-nature-matters-llc-lactapp-2008.