Bridgepoint Healthcare Louisiana, LLC Versus St. Theresa Specialty Hospital, L.L.C. Bliant Specialty Hospital, LLC, Opulence Management Group, LLC, and Juanita Bonds

BRIDGEPOINT HEALTHCARE LOUISIANA, NO. 21-CA-612
LLC
FIFTH CIRCUIT
VERSUS
COURT OF APPEAL
ST. THERESA SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, L.L.C.
BLIANT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, LLC, STATE OF LOUISIANA
OPULENCE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
AND JUANITA BONDS

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 811-429, DIVISION "K"
HONORABLE ELLEN SHIRER KOVACH, JUDGE PRESIDING

May 11, 2022

ROBERT A. CHAISSON
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Robert A. Chaisson, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

AFFIRMED AS AMENDED
RAC
JGG
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
BRIDGEPOINT HEALTHCARE LOUISIANA, LLC
Henry A. King
Michael L. Vincenzo

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
JUANITA BONDS
T. Michael Murphy
G. Steven Duplechain

CHAISSON, J.

Juanita Bonds appeals the trial court’s granting of a default judgment in

favor of BridgePoint Healthcare, LLC (“BridgePoint”). In challenging this ruling,

Mrs. Bonds contends that BridgePoint, in obtaining the default judgment, failed to

present a prima facie case in support of its claims. She further asserts that the trial

court erred in awarding attorney fees to BridgePoint as part of its conversion claim.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s granting of the default

judgment in favor of BridgePoint; however, we vacate the portion of the judgment

that awards attorney fees to BridgePoint.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 7, 2017, BridgePoint and St. Theresa Specialty Hospital, LLC

(“St. Theresa”) executed an Asset Purchase Agreement whereby BridgePoint

purchased substantially all of the assets of a hospital operated by St. Theresa and

located at East Jefferson General Hospital in Metairie. In connection with this

purchase agreement, as well as a Management Services Agreement (“MSA”)

executed between BridgePoint and St. Theresa on November 1, 2017, St. Theresa

was entitled to receive payments arising from the rendering of services at the East

Jefferson facility up until November 1, 2017. Subsequent to this date, St. Theresa

was obligated to turn over to BridgePoint any funds received for hospital

operations.

In November of 2018, People’s Health issued a check to St. Theresa in the

amount of $58,120.23 for services rendered by St. Theresa at the East Jefferson

facility in September of 2018. During an audit, BridgePoint discovered that this

receivable had not been turned over to BridgePoint as required by the agreements

entered into between the parties. After obtaining a copy of the cancelled check

from People’s Health, Sarah Ann Rand, the Vice President and Chief Financial

21-CA-612 1

Officer of BridgePoint, contacted St. Theresa, who advised her that it was not in

possession of the check and recommended that she contact Mrs. Bonds, the

president of Opulence Management Group, LLC (“Opulence”). St. Theresa had

entered into a Management Services Agreement with Opulence to provide

management services for a separate facility located in Kenner. According to

testimony in the record, Ms. Rand contacted Mrs. Bonds, who told her to contact

the administrator at the Kenner location to handle the matter. Ms. Rand emailed

the contact address that Mrs. Bonds had provided and requested an immediate

return of the missing funds. Ms. Rand received no reply and thereafter sent

another email to the contact provided by Mrs. Bonds. After again receiving no

response, Ms. Rand made a demand through an attorney, which was also

unsuccessful.

In October of 2020, BridgePoint filed a Petition for Damages against

St. Theresa, Bliant Specialty Hospital (“Bliant”), Opulence, and Mrs. Bonds as

registered agent, manager, and principal of Bliant and Opulence. In the petition,

BridgePoint alleged that on November 11, 2018, a check was issued to St. Theresa

in the amount of $58,120.23 for services rendered by BridgePoint on or about

September 17, 2018; that this check was not turned over to BridgePoint in

violation of the purchase agreement and MSA; that Bliant and/or Opulence, which

provided management services for the hospital, on behalf of St. Theresa, received

this receivable, and through their principal, Mrs. Bonds, deposited this check rather

than turning it over to BridgePoint; and that despite amicable demand, St. Theresa,

Bliant, Opulence, and Mrs. Bonds have failed to return this receivable.1 This

original petition asserted causes of action for breach of contract and unjust

enrichment against St. Theresa, as well as claims for conversion and unjust

1
The petition also alleged that St. Theresa failed to turn over a second receivable to BridgePoint as
required by the agreements entered into between the two parties; however, this second check is not
relevant to this appeal.

21-CA-612 2

enrichment against Mrs. Bonds, Opulence, and Bliant, for failure to turn over this

receivable. The only claims pertinent to this appeal are the conversion and unjust

enrichment claims asserted against Mrs. Bonds for the first receivable.

The record indicates that Mrs. Bonds, Opulence, and Bliant received service

of the citation and petition through the Louisiana Long Arm Statute. Despite this

service, Mrs. Bonds, Opulence, and Bliant made no appearance in the matter and

filed no responsive pleadings. BridgePoint thereafter filed a Motion for

Preliminary Default pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1701 against Mrs. Bonds,

Opulence, and Bliant, which the trial court granted on February 16, 2021.

On March 26, 2021, BridgePoint filed a Motion for Confirmation of Default

Judgment against Mrs. Bonds pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1702. Therein,

BridgePoint asserted: on October 21, 2020, BridgePoint instituted the action

against Mrs. Bonds; on December 12, 2020, Mrs. Bonds received service of the

citation and petition through the Louisiana Long Arm Statute; on January 4, 2021,

the Affidavit of Service was filed into the record; more than thirty days lapsed after

the filing of the Affidavit of Service before a preliminary default was entered;

more than two days, exclusive of holidays, have elapsed since the entry of the

preliminary default judgment; and Mrs. Bonds has still not made any appearance in

this matter.

On May 12, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on BridgePoint’s

Motion for Confirmation of Default Judgment. At the hearing, BridgePoint

introduced affidavits, exhibits, and the testimony of two witnesses – Sarah Ann

Rand, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of BridgePoint, and Christina

Spinelli, who effected service on Mrs. Bonds. At the conclusion of the hearing,

after considering the evidence introduced and the argument of counsel, the trial

court entered a judgment confirming the default and awarding attorney fees and

court costs to BridgePoint. On May 24, 2021, the trial court signed a written final

21-CA-612 3

default judgment in favor of BridgePoint and against Mrs. Bonds in the total

amount of $71,466.10, which includes the principal amount of $58,120.23,

attorney fees in the amount of $11,659.00, and costs in the amount of $1,686.87.

Mrs. Bonds now appeals the default judgment entered against her. She

specifically contends that the trial court erred in finding that BridgePoint

established a prima facie case proving conversion and unjust enrichment. She also

contests the trial court’s award of attorney fees to BridgePoint.

DISCUSSION

A judgment of default must be confirmed by proof of the demand sufficient

to establish a prima facie case. La. C.C.P. art. 1702(A). For a plaintiff to obtain a

default judgment, he must establish the elements of a prima facie case with

competent evidence, as fully as though the defendant denied each of the allegations

in the petition. A plaintiff must present competent evidence that convinces the

court that it is probable that he would prevail on a trial on the merits. River Parish

Contractors, Inc. v. Savoie, 12-148 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/11/12), 101 So.3d 495, 499.

When a demand is based upon a delictual obligation, the testimony of the plaintiff

with corroborating evidence, which may be by affidavits and exhibits annexed

thereto containing facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case, shall be

admissible, self-authenticating, and sufficient proof of such demand. La. C.C.P.

art. 1702(B)(2). Further, there is a presumption that a default judgment is

supported by sufficient evidence, but this presumption may be rebutted by the

record upon which the judgment is rendered. Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans,

L.L.C., 08-1111 (La. 5/5/09), 9 So.3d 815, 820. In reviewing default judgments,

the appellate court is restricted to determining the sufficiency of the evidence

offered in support of the judgment. This determination is a factual one governed

by the manifest error standard of review. Id. at 818; Evans v. Jolly, 17-159 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 10/25/17), 229 So.3d 650, 653.

21-CA-612 4

Conversion is an intentional tort and consists of an act in derogation of the

plaintiff’s possessory rights. Dileo v. Horn, 15-684 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/16/16), 189

So.3d 1189, 1198. The tort of conversion is committed when one wrongfully does

any act of dominion over the property of another in denial of or inconsistent with

the owner’s rights. Any wrongful exercise or assumption of authority over

another’s goods, depriving him of the possession, permanently or for an indefinite

time, is a conversion. Louisiana civil law conversion is committed when any of

the following occurs: 1) possession is acquired in an unauthorized manner; 2) the

chattel is removed from one place to another with the intent to exercise control

over it; 3) possession of the chattel is transferred without authority; 4) possession is

withheld from the owner or possessor; 5) the chattel is altered or destroyed; 6) the

chattel is used improperly; or 7) ownership is asserted over the chattel.

Funderburg v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., 10-517 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/29/11),

83 So.3d 1148, 1151, writ denied, 12-309 (La. 3/30/12), 85 So.3d 126.

On appeal, in her challenge to the default judgment, Mrs. Bonds contends

that the trial court erred in finding that BridgePoint established a prima facie case

proving that Mrs. Bonds personally converted funds. She points out that the

evidence presented to the trial court reflected that Opulence, not Mrs. Bonds,

owned the account in which BridgePoint’s check was deposited. Further, Mrs.

Bonds notes the lack of evidence establishing that she, as opposed to some other

employee of Opulence, deposited the check into Opulence’s account.

In contrast, BridgePoint contends that it sufficiently proved a prima facie

conversion claim under Louisiana law as it established that the receivable belonged

to BridgePoint, that Mrs. Bonds deprived access to BridgePoint of those funds by

depositing the check into the Opulence account, and that this amounted to

wrongful misuse because Mrs. Bonds was advised that the funds belonged to

BridgePoint and ignored requests to return them.

21-CA-612 5

Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence submitted by BridgePoint at the

hearing on its Motion for Confirmation of Default Judgment, we find no merit to

Mrs. Bonds’ argument that BridgePoint failed to establish a prima facie case of

conversion. At the May 12, 2021 hearing, the testimony, affidavits, and exhibits

established that BridgePoint had ownership rights to the funds in question, that

St. Theresa contracted with Opulence, through its owner and agent Juanita Bonds,

to provide management services for St. Theresa at a Kenner facility, that Mrs.

Bonds had authority to deposit and withdraw revenues of St. Theresa through the

management agreement, that Mrs. Bonds deposited the check in her Opulence

account at Regions bank, and that Mrs. Bonds refused to turn over the check

despite amicable demand. Among other documents, BridgePoint introduced the

account from Regions Bank opened by Mrs. Bonds in the name of Opulence, the

deposited check signed by Mrs. Bonds, and a signature card showing Mrs. Bonds’

signature, which matched the signature on the back of the deposited check. In light

of this evidence, we find no manifest error in the trial court’s granting of a default

judgment in favor of BridgePoint and against Mrs. Bonds.

As part of her challenge to the default judgment, Mrs. Bonds also contends

that the trial court erred by finding that BridgePoint established a prima facie case

proving that Mrs. Bonds was unjustly enriched. In light of our determination on

the conversion cause of action, we find it unnecessary to address the issue relating

to unjust enrichment.

Mrs. Bonds further alleges that the trial court erred in awarding judgment

against her personally without any evidence to suggest that she acted for her own

benefit or that she acted outside her capacity as mandate for Bliant and/or

Opulence. To support her contention that she cannot be held personally liable for

the actions of the entity, she cites La. R.S. 12:1320, which sets forth the liability

protection afforded to the members, managers, employees, and agents of a limited

21-CA-612 6

liability company, as well as the exceptions thereto. La. R.S. 12:1320 reads as

follows:

A. The liability of members, managers, employees, or agents, as such,
of a limited liability company organized and existing under this
Chapter shall at all times be determined solely and exclusively by the
provisions of this Chapter.
B. Except as otherwise specifically set forth in this Chapter, no
member, manager, employee, or agent of a limited liability company
is liable in such capacity for a debt, obligation, or liability of the
limited liability company.

C. A member, manager, employee, or agent of a limited liability
company is not a proper party to a proceeding by or against a limited
liability company, except when the object is to enforce such a
person’s rights against or liability to the limited liability company.

D. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as being in derogation
of any rights which any person may by law have against a member,
manager, employee, or agent of a limited liability company because of
any fraud practiced upon him, because of any breach of professional
duty or other negligent or wrongful act by such person, or in
derogation of any right which the limited liability company may have
against any such person because of any fraud practiced upon it by
him.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that under La. R.S. 12:1320, a

member’s protection against personal liability is not unlimited, and that in

narrowly defined circumstances, an individual member can be subjected to

personal liability for obligations for which the limited liability company would

otherwise be solely liable. See Ogea v. Merritt, 13-1085 (La. 12/10/13), 130 So.3d

888. Further, the Louisiana Supreme Court has identified four facts to consider in

determining whether a member of a limited liability company may be held

personally liable for his negligent or wrongful acts: 1) whether a member’s

conduct could be fairly characterized as a traditionally recognized tort; 2) whether

a member’s conduct could be fairly characterized as a crime, for which a natural

person, not a juridical person, could be held culpable; 3) whether the conduct at

issue was required by, or was in furtherance of, a contract between the claimant

and the LLC; and 4) whether the conduct at issue was done outside the member’s

21-CA-612 7

capacity as a member. Id. at 900-01. A court is to evaluate each situation on a

case-by-case basis and consider each of the above factors when determining

whether the general rule of limited liability must yield to the exception for a

member’s negligent of wrongful act set forth in La. R.S. 12:1320(D). Id. at 905.

Upon our review of the record, we find that Mrs. Bonds failed to rebut the

presumption that the default judgment was supported by sufficient evidence. In

reviewing the factors set forth in Ogea, we find that Mrs. Bonds’ actions can be

characterized as a tort. As previously discussed, Mrs. Bonds deposited the check

that belonged to BridgePoint and failed to return the funds despite amicable

demand, thereby amounting to the tort of conversion. Further, Mrs. Bonds’ failure

to return the money could be perceived as a crime of theft. Additionally, not only

was Mrs. Bonds’ conversion of and failure to return funds owned by BridgePoint

not required by or in furtherance of any of the agreements between BridgePoint

and St. Theresa or St. Theresa and Opulence, her conduct was in direct

contravention of those agreements. Lastly, even if Mrs. Bonds was acting within

the structure of the limited liability company, that factor alone would not be

determinative. In light of the foregoing, we find no merit in Mrs. Bonds’ argument

that she could not be held personally liable.

On appeal, Mrs. Bonds also contests the trial court’s award of attorney fees

to BridgePoint. She asserts that there is no contract between BridgePoint and

herself that allows for the recovery of attorney fees, and further, there is no

statutory authority under La. C.C. art. 2315 that allows for the recovery of attorney

fees in a conversion claim.

In contrast, Bridgepoint asserts that the award of attorney fees was properly

allowed under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”). BridgePoint

alleges that it sought recovery against Mrs. Bonds, not just based on conversion or

unjust enrichment, but also under any other laws of the State of Louisiana that

21-CA-612 8

would support a right to relief under the facts pled. It reasons that the facts that

justified a default judgment against Bonds for conversion also amounted to a

deceptive trade practice under LUTPA, which allows for the recovery of attorney

fees. We disagree with BridgePoint’s argument.

It is well settled in Louisiana that attorney fees are not allowed except where

authorized by statute or agreed to by contract. Jefferson Door Co., Inc. v. Lago

Development, L.L.C., 03-61 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/03), 848 So.2d 101, 103. In the

present case, there is no contract between BridgePoint and Mrs. Bonds that allows

for the recovery of attorney fees. As such, BridgePoint’s authority to recover

attorney fees must be authorized by statute.

In its Petition for Damages, BridgePoint specifically requested attorney fees

in connection with its conversion claim against Bonds. Furthermore, in footnote

number one of its appellate brief, BridgePoint states:

BridgePoint notes that its briefing and argument presented at the
Evidentiary Hearing in this matter on May 21, 2021 were directed in
support of BridgePoint’s claim for conversion against Bonds. …
Accordingly, BridgePoint seeks an affirmation of the trial court’s
judgment under that theory of liability.

From our review of the record, it is clear that the attorney fees in this case

were requested and awarded in connection with BridgePoint’s claim for conversion

against Mrs. Bonds. There is no statutory provision that mandates the recovery of

attorney fees for a tort lawsuit in conversion. Fenner v. Schley, 51,842 (La. App. 2

Cir. 3/14/18), 246 So.3d 770, 774. Further, there was no contract between

BridgePoint and Mrs. Bonds that provided for the recovery of attorney fees.

Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees as part of

BridgePoint’s conversion claim against Mrs. Bonds.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the trial court’s granting of a

default judgment in favor of BridgePoint and against Mrs. Bonds in the amount of

21-CA-612 9

$58,120.23 and costs in the amount of $1,686.87. However, we vacate that portion

of the judgment that awarded attorney fees to BridgePoint.

AFFIRMED AS AMENDED

21-CA-612 10

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
MAY 11, 2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-CA-612
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE ELLEN SHIRER KOVACH (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MICHAEL L. VINCENZO (APPELLEE) W. SPENCER KING (APPELLEE) DAVID M. MCDONALD (APPELLEE)
T. MICHAEL MURPHY (APPELLANT)

MAILED
HENRY A. KING (APPELLEE) G. STEVEN DUPLECHAIN (APPELLANT)
ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW
201 ST. CHARLES AVENUE 8708 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY
SUITE 4500 SUITE B
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70170 BATON ROUGE, LA 70809