Stuart Services, L.L.C. v. Nash Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. And Ronnie Camet

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 14, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STUART SERVICES, L.L.C.
VS.
NASH HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
AND RONNIE CAMET
No. 2023-C-00015
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Stuart Services, L.L.C. - Applicant Plaintiff; Applyi ng For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Number(s) 707 -856,
Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 22-CA-105;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 14, 2023
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
JTG
JDH
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
03/14/2023 "See News Release 013 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2023-C-00015
S
TUART SERVICES, L.L.C.
VS.
NASH HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC. AND RONNIE CAMET
O
n Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson
PER CURIAM
The
lower courts erred in awarding attorney fees and costs in favor of
Defendant after finding Defendant breached an employment agreement with
Plaintiff.1 For the reasons that follow, we reverse the lower courts ’ judgments
awarding attorney fees and costs to Defendant.
Our jurisprudence has consistently held that where one party substantially
breaches a contract, the other party to the contract has a defense and an excuse for
nonperformance. La. C.C. art. 2013 (“When the obligor fails to perform, the obligee
has a right to the judicial dissolution of the contract or, according to the
circumstances, to regard the contract as dissolved.” );2 Commerce Ins. Agency, Inc.
v. Ho
gue, 618 So.2d 1048, 1052 (La. App. App. 1 Cir. 1993), writ denied, 626 So.2d
11
71 (La. 1993)(citations omitted)(finding breach of a non- solicitation clause a
material breach); J.H. Garrison & Son v. Sherill Hardwood Lumber Co., 156 La.
147, 150, 100 So. 253, 25 4 (1924)(a party may not claim damages for non-
performance of a contract to which he has not performed); Iberia Bank v. Broussard,
907 F.3d 826, 837 (5th Cir. 2018)(in accordance with La. C.C. art 2022, an employee
1 Although Defendant answered the appeal, his answer was limited to the issue of attorney fees
and costs. He did not raise as an issue the lower court’s finding that he breached the employment
agreement.
2 Conversely, “a contract may not be dissolved when the obligor has rendered a substantial part of
the performance and the part not rendered does not substantially impair the interest of the obligee.”
La. C.C. art. 2014.
03/14/23

2

could not recover under an employment agreement, a commutative contract under
La. C.C. art. 1911,3 due to his own breach); B.F. Edington Drilling Co. v. Yearwood,
118 So.2d 419 (1960); and Olympic Ins. Co. v. H.D. Harrison Inc., 463 F.2d 1049
(5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 930, 93 S. Ct. 1373, 35 L.Ed.2d 593 (1973) .
See also, V.P. Owen Const. Co. v. Dunbar, 532 So.2d 835, 837 (La. App. 4 Cir.
1988) (trial court did not err in rejecting a claim for attorney fees and interest made
by construction company that breached the contract).
The undisputed facts reveal that Defendant, Mr. Ronnie Camet, sold his
business to Plaintiff, Stuart Services, L.L.C. (“Stuart”). In addition, Mr. Camet was
hired by Stuart to serve as a liaison to his former clients. In conjunction with the
sale and his employment with Stuart, Mr. Camet signed an employment agreement,
which contained non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. In granting Stuart’s
motion for partial summary judgment, and a s the lower courts found, Mr. Camet
breached the provisions of the employment agreement when he became employed
with Nash Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., a direct competitor, shortly after ending
his employment with Stuart. This finding has not been appealed.
Given Mr. Camet breached an essential component of his employment
agreement, Stuart was entitled to raise non-performance as an affirmative defense to
Mr. Camet’s request for attorney fees under the contract.
For these reasons, we find Mr. Camet, as the breaching party, is not entitled
to recover damages in the form of attorney fees and costs under the contract.
Accordingly, the lowers courts erred in applying the attorney fee provisions in those
contracts and in awarding attorney fees and costs in favor of Mr. Camet . We ,
therefore, reverse the lower courts and vacate the award of attorney fees and costs
to Mr. Camet.

3 La. C.C. art. 1911 states: “A contract is commutative when the performance of the obligation of
each party is correlative to the performance of the other.”