Belfor USA Group, Inc. v Riverside Court Condominium Association, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BELFOUR USA GROUP, INC. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-2235
RIVERSIDE COURT CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC.
SECTION: “P” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff, BELFOR USA
Group, Inc. (“BELFOR”).1 BELFOR’s motion was set for submission on September 24, 2025.2
To date, Defendant, Riverside Court Condominium Association, Inc. (“Riverside”), has not filed
a response to BELFOR’s motion. For the following reasons, BELFOR’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The undisputed facts are as follows. On March 20, 2024, representatives for BELFOR and
Riverside entered into a contract titled “Louisiana Work Authorization Contract,” pursuant to
which BELFOR was hired to perform emergency and mitigation services to a property owned by
Riverside that had been damaged by a fire.3 According to the uncontested affidavit of BELFOR’s
General Manager, Andrew Burns, BELFOR disclosed to Riverside that the projected cost of the
services to be provided was $672,525.00.4 BELFOR then promptly began the performance of its
1 R. Doc. 18.
2 R. Doc. 18-7.
3 R. Doc. 18-3; R. Doc. 18-4. The Court notes that the contract was executed between a representative for BELFOR
and a representative for Victorian Condominiums. The pleadings to this case establish that Riverside is a corporation
doing business as Victorian Condominiums. See R. Doc. 1 at ¶ I (alleging this fact); R. Doc. 5 at ¶ 1 (admitting this
fact). And there is no dispute that Riverside is the proper defendant in this case. For the sake of clarity, the Court refers
to Riverside rather than Victorian Condominiums throughout this Order and Reasons.
4 R. Doc. 18-3.
Case 2:24-cv-02235-DJP-KWR Document 21 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 6

2
emergency and mitigation services pursuant to the work authorization contract, with the
knowledge and approval of Riverside and its insurance adjuster.5
On April 8, 2024, Riverside directed BELFOR to cease its emergency and mitigation
services, and BELFOR complied.6 At that time, BELFOR had performed services in all 26 of the
affected units at the property and had completed services in nine of those units.7 On April 19, 2024,
BELFOR issued an invoice to Riverside for $383,922.34, which BELFOR states is the amount
owed for the services performed in accordance with the work authorization contract.8 Under the
terms of the contract, the property owner “shall pay BELFOR immediately upon receipt of
invoice.”9 According to Mr. Burns, Riverside has failed to make any payment on the invoice.10
BELFOR now moves for summary judgment in its favor in the amount of $383,922.34, plus
interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees, based on Riverside’s breach of contract.11
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is warranted when “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.”12 The Court
considers the evidence in the record without making credibility determinations or weighing the
evidence.13 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.14 If the record
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute
of material fact.15
5 R. Doc. 18-3.
6 R. Doc. 18-3.
7 R. Doc. 18-3.
8 R. Doc. 18-3; R. Doc. 18-5.
9 R. Doc. 18-4.
10 R. Doc. 18-3.
11 R. Doc. 18.
12 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
13 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008).
14 Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985).
15 EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 2014).
Case 2:24-cv-02235-DJP-KWR Document 21 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 6

3
In the Fifth Circuit, a district court may not grant a “default” summary judgment on the
ground that it is unopposed.16 Even in the context of unopposed motions for summary judgment,
the movant must still show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to
summary judgment as a matter of law.17 When a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, a
court may accept the movant's evidence as undisputed.18 Nevertheless, if the moving party fails to
meet its burden, the Court must deny its motion for summary judgment.19
III. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
A claim for breach of contract requires “(1) the obligor’s undertaking an obligation to
perform, (2) the obligor failed to perform the obligation (the breach), and (3) the failure to perform
resulted in damages to the obligee.”20 “Put differently, the elements of a breach of contract are the
existence of an agreement, a breach of that agreement, and damages resulting from that breach.”21
Here, the undisputed facts establish that an agreement existed between BELFOR and
Riverside under which BELFOR would perform services and Riverside would pay for those
services. It is also undisputed that BELFOR performed emergency and mitigation services
pursuant to the contract, that BELFOR submitted an invoice to Riverside for the work performed
under the contract, that payment was due immediately upon receipt of the invoice, and that
Riverside has failed to make any payment on the invoice. Accordingly, Riverside has breached the
contract. Riverside is therefore liable for damages caused by its breach.22
16 Morgan v. Fed. Express Corp., 114 F. Supp. 3d 434, 437 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (collecting cases).
17 Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 363 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995).
18 Morgan, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 437.
19 Hetzel, 50 F.3d at 362 n.3.
20 Favrot v. Favrot, 68 So. 3d 1099, 1109 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (citing 1436 Jackson Joint Venture v. World
Constr. Co., Inc., 499 So. 2d 426, 427 (La. Ct. App. 4 Cir. 1986)).
21 CCAPS, LLC v. HD and Associates, LLC, No. 21-2195, 2023 WL 1965087, (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 2023).
22 L A. CIV.CODE art. 1994 (“An obligor is liable for the damages caused by his failure to perform a conventional
obligation.”).
Case 2:24-cv-02235-DJP-KWR Document 21 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 6

4
Under Louisiana law, damages for the breach of a contract “are measured by the loss
sustained by the obligee and the profit of which he has been deprived.”23 Additionally, “when the
object of the performance is a sum of money, damages for delay in performance are measured by
the interest on that sum from the time it is due, at the rate agreed by the parties, or, in the absence
of an agreement, at the rate of legal interest as fixed by R.S. 9:3500.”24 And “[i]f the parties, by
written contract, have expressly agreed that the obligor shall also be liable for the obligee’s
attorney’s fees in a fixed or determinable amount, the oblige is entitled to that amount as well.”25
The contract between BELFOR and Riverside included the following relevant provisions:
(1) “In the event of termination, for any reason, [Riverside] shall pay BELFOR for all Work
performed up to the effective date of the termination plus any incidental, direct, or actual costs
incurred by BELFOR;”26 (2) “Unless the parties agree to a different payment schedule, [Riverside]
shall pay BELFOR immediately upon receipt of invoice;”27 (3) “Invoices not paid when due will
accrue interest from the due date until paid at the rate of 1.5% per month or the maximum amount
allowed by law, whichever is greater;”28 and (4) “If for any reason the amount due to BELFOR is
not paid, BELFOR shall be entitled to recover the costs and its expenses of collection (including
actual attorney’s fees incurred) plus interest as set forth in Section 6.”29
It is undisputed that the amount owed to BELFOR for the work performed up to the date
of termination of the contract is $383,922.34. Riverside’s failure to pay therefore resulted in a loss
of $383,922.34 to BELFOR, and BELFOR is entitled to this amount in damages.30 Under
23 L A CIV. CODE art. 1995.
24 L A. CIV. C ODE art. 2000.
25 L A. CIV. C ODE art. 2000.
26 R. Doc. 18-4 at p. 2, § 14(j).
27 R. Doc. 18-4 at p. 1, § 6(a).
28 R. Doc. 18-4 at p. 1, § 6(d).
29 R. Doc. 18-4 at p. 2, § 14(l).
30 See L A CIV CODE art. 1995.
Case 2:24-cv-02235-DJP-KWR Document 21 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 6

5
Louisiana law and the terms of the contract, BELFOR is also entitled to damages for the delay of
payment, which is measured by the interest on the amount due, from the due date until paid, at a
rate of 1.5% per month.31 And because the parties expressly agreed in the contract that BELFOR
shall be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the collection of the amount owed,
BELFOR is also entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as well.32
Accordingly, based on the undisputed evidence before the Court, BELFOR has shown that
Riverside breached the contract between the parties and that Riverside is liable to BELFOR for
damages in the amount of $383,922.34; plus interest on the amount due at a rate of 1.5% per month
from the due date until paid, in accordance with the terms of the Louisiana Work Authorization
Contract; and for BELFOR’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with this
action.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that BELFOR’s Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 18) is
GRANTED. Final judgment will be entered in favor of BELFOR, and against Riverside for
damages in the amount of $383,922.34; plus interest on the amount due at a rate of 1.5% per month
from the due date until paid, in accordance with the terms of the Louisiana Work Authorization
Contract; and for BELFOR’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with this
action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BELFOR shall make any motion for attorney’s fees
and costs within 14 days of the entry of final judgment. Should BELFOR file such a motion, it
shall be determined by the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.
31 See L A. CIV. CODE art. 2000.
32 See id.
Case 2:24-cv-02235-DJP-KWR Document 21 Filed 11/06/25 Page 5 of 6

6
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of November 2025.
__________________________________________
DARREL JAMES PAPILLION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02235-DJP-KWR Document 21 Filed 11/06/25 Page 6 of 6