Northern Frac Proppants v. Regions ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30322 Document: 00516747490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 11, 2023
No. 22-30322
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Northern Frac Proppants, L.L.C.; Northern Frac
Proppants, L.L.C., Series 1; Northern Frac Proppants,
L.L.C., Series 2,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Regions Bank, N.A.,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-811
Before Ho, Oldham, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Northern Frac Proppants, LLC and its subsidiaries appeal the grant of
summary judgment in favor of Regions Bank, N.A. We AFFIRM.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30322 Document: 00516747490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30322
I.
In 2012, Kenneth Landgaard formed Northern Frac Proppants, LLC
(“NFP”) to succeed the sand fracking business of his company NF Holdings.
NFP was organized as a Series LLC. It later created two sub-entities,
Northern Frac Proppants, LLC Series I (“Series I”) and Northern Frac
Proppants, LLC Series II (“Series II”).
Soon after NFP’s formation, Landgaard brought on Jefferies Alston
to serve as chief executive officer, a member, and a manager of NFP. NFP
authorized Alston to open a bank account on its behalf. On January 11, 2013,
Alston opened an account at Regions Bank (“Account 0083”) in NFP’s
name using NFP’s EIN. NFP didn’t inform Regions Bank of any limits on
Alston’s authority. NFP received monthly bank statements at an address
Alston provided. In March 2013, NFP enrolled in online banking, giving it
online access to account information, statements, and transactions. Each
bank statement informed NFP of its duty to promptly review and report any
problems reflected on the statement as well as time limits and procedures for
reporting errors to Regions Bank.
A few months later, Alston created a new company, Northern Frac
Proppants II, LLC (“NFP II”), unaffiliated with NFP, Series I, and Series II.
Then Alston instructed Brian Mora, a signatory on Account 0083, to direct
Regions Bank to change the name and EIN number of Account 0083 to NFP
II’s name and EIN number, effectively transferring all the assets in Account
0083 to NFP II. Regions Bank changed the EIN number on January 8, 2014,
and the account name to Northern Frac Proppants II, LLC on March 31,
2014. The February 2014 statement was the last one addressed to
“NORTHERN FRAC PROPPANTS LLC.” The March 2014 statement
reflected the change of ownership, addressing “NORTHERN FRAC
PROPPANTS II LLC” in three separate places. NFP still had access to
2
Case: 22-30322 Document: 00516747490 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30322
Account 0083’s information and bank statements after the change. Regions
Bank didn’t receive any complaints or reported errors from NFP.
From 2015 to 2017, Landgaard, NF Holdings, and NFP brought a
series of lawsuits against Alston and others—but not Regions Bank. In
compliance with subpoenas, Regions Bank produced the February 2014 and
March 2014 bank statements three times beginning in March 2017. The email
exchange between Mora and Regions Bank to change the name and EIN
number of Account 0083 was introduced as an exhibit in a deposition of Mora
on July 10, 2018.
After these lawsuits settled, NFP, Series I, and Series II (collectively
“the NFP Entities”) commenced this action against Regions Bank in
November 2019. They brought Louisiana state law claims alleging breach of
contract, negligence, and violation of the Louisiana Uniform Fiduciaries
Law.
The parties conducted discovery. Regions Bank filed a motion for
summary judgment. Then the district judge sua sponte recused himself and
reassigned the case to another judge. One week later, both judges issued an
order, stating:
On February 11, 2022, the presiding Judge entered an order
recusing himself from the above-captioned action. (Doc. 94).
Upon further review, this recusal order was entered in error.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the February 11, 2022
Order of Recusal (Doc. 94) be and is hereby STRICKEN. IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned action be
and is hereby returned to the Hon. Brian A. Jackson for all
further proceedings.
ROA.5227. Neither party objected.
The district court awarded summary judgment for Regions Bank in
April 2022. Of relevance here, the district court concluded that the NFP
3
Case: 22-30322 Document: 00516747490 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30322
Entities’ negligence and breach of contract claims were time-barred and the
doctrine of contra non valentem could not save the NFP Entities’ claims. The
NFP Entities appealed.
II.
The NFP Entities first urge us to vacate the summary judgment order
because the recusal order violated 28 U.S.C. § 455(e). True, the district court
erred by failing to follow the procedures of § 455(e). See Doddy v. OXY USA,
Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 458 (5th Cir. 1996).
But the NFP Entities’ objection is untimely. See United States v.
Sanford, 157 F.3d 987, 989 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that a challenger’s
“objection [was] untimely” when he “knew of the facts purportedly causing
an appearance of impropriety” under 28 U.S.C. § 455 but waited to raise the
recusal issue for the first time months later and on appeal). The NFP Entities
were obligated to raise this objection “at the earliest moment” after they
learned of the violation. Id. at 988 (quotation omitted). The NFP Entities
knew of the rescinded recusal order on February 18, 2022. They then brought
several motions before the district court without mention of the order. In fact,
the NFP Entities never raised this issue in the district court. They instead
waited until after the district court entered a summary judgment order against
them and after they appealed. See id. at 989 (rejecting a recusal objection “on
appeal when the challenger waited to see if he liked an outcome before
springing the recusal issue”). The NFP Entities have not shown “good
cause” for this delay nor “exceptional circumstances why we should
consider the issue for the first time on appeal.” Clay v. Allen, 242 F.3d 679,
681 (5th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted).
III.
We now proceed to the merits. We review the district court’s
summary judgment determination de novo. See Playa Vista Conroe v. Ins. Co.
4
Case: 22-30322 Document: 00516747490 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30322
of the W., 989 F.3d 411, 414 (5th Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is
appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(a).
We agree with the district court that both (A) the breach of contract and (B)
the negligence claims are time-barred.1
A.
First, we assess the breach of contract claim. Under Louisiana law,
these claims are subject to a ten-year prescription period. See La. C.C. art.
3499. But a more specific statute can provide a shorter limitations period. See
id.; Smith v. Citadel Ins. Co., 19-00052 (La. 10/22/19), 285 So. 3d 1062, 1067.
Here, the one-year bar from La. R.S. § 10:4-406 applies. This statute “places
a duty on a bank customer to examine the bank statement and notify the bank
of any unauthorized transactions.” Ducote v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 16-574 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 2/22/17), 212 So. 3d 729, 734, writ denied, 17-0522 (La. 5/26/17),
221 So. 3d 860. The statute provides:
(a) A bank that sends or makes available to a customer a
statement of account showing payment of items for the account
shall either return or make available to the customer the items
paid or provide information in the statement of account
sufficient to allow the customer reasonably to identify the items
paid. The statement of account provides sufficient information
if the item is described by item number, amount, and date of
payment. . . .
(c) If a bank sends or makes available a statement of account or
items pursuant to Subsection (a), the customer must exercise
reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the items
1
The NFP Entities do not contest the district court’s dismissal of their Uniform
Fiduciaries Law claim against Regions Bank. Thus, we do not reach this issue. See Allen v.
U.S. Postal Serv., 63 F.4th 292, 299 (5th Cir. 2023).
5
Case: 22-30322 Document: 00516747490 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30322
to determine whether any payment was not authorized because
of an alteration of an item or because a purported signature by
or on behalf of the customer was not authorized. If, based on
the statement or items provided, the customer should
reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment, the
customer must promptly notify the bank of the relevant facts.
La. R.S. § 10:4-406. And “La. R.S. 10:4–406(f) imposes an absolute bar to
any customer claim based upon an unauthorized transfer not reported within
one year after the bank statement has been made available.” Ducote, 212 So.
3d at 734. It provides in full:
(f) Without regard to care or lack of care of either the customer
or the bank, a customer who does not within one year after the
statement or items are made available to the customer
(Subsection (a)) discover and report the customer’s
unauthorized signature on or any alteration on the item is
precluded from asserting against the bank the unauthorized
signature or alteration. If there is a preclusion under this
Subsection, the payor bank may not recover for breach of
warranty under R.S. 10:4-208 with respect to the unauthorized
signature or alteration to which the preclusion applies.
La. R.S. § 10:4-406(f). Regions Bank changed the name of Account 0083
on March 31, 2014. This name change was an unauthorized transfer within
the meaning of the statute. See Ducote, 212 So. 3d at 734. The March 2014
statement reflected this change in three separate places. The NFP Entities
had access to the March 2014 statement via online banking. But the NFP
Entities failed to exercise “reasonable promptness in examining the
statement . . . to determine whether any payment was not authorized,” La.
R.S. § 10:4-406(c), and then “discover and report” the problem in one year,
id. § 10:4-406(f); see also Costello v. City Bank (S.D.), N.A., 45,518 (La. App.
2 Cir. 9/29/10), 48 So. 3d 1108, 1113 (“Plaintiffs’ failure to review the
statements which were sent to them has caused their claims to prescribe.”).
6
Case: 22-30322 Document: 00516747490 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-30322
The NFP Entities “should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized
payment” “based on the statement” and alerted Regions Bank. La. R.S.
§ 10:4-406(c). And even if the March 2014 statement was insufficient to
notify them under Subsection (a), they later had sufficient information. NFP
CEO Landgaard had a copy of the email transferring the account at least as
early as July 10, 2018. See Ducote, 212 So. 3d at 736 (holding that where a
customer received memos recording unauthorized fund transfers over email
and telephone, the customer had sufficient notice). But the NFP Entities
never presented this problem to Regions Bank and sued over a year later in
November 2019. Thus, their breach of contract claim is barred.
B.
The NFP Entities’ negligence claim is also time-barred. Under
Louisiana law, negligence actions are subject to a one-year prescription
period, beginning on “the day injury or damage is sustained.” La. C.C. art.
3492. The NFP Entities concede they did not bring the negligence claim
within this time frame.
The doctrine of contra non valentem does not save their claim. This
doctrine tolls the statute of limitations against a plaintiff “whose cause of
action is not reasonably known or discoverable by him” until “the date the
negligence was discovered or should have been discovered by a reasonable
person in the plaintiff’s position.” Teague v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
2007-1384 (La. 2/1/08), 974 So. 2d 1266, 1274–75. The NFP Entities had the
Account 0083 statements, cancelled checks, and signature cards addressed
to NFP II as well as notice of the email transferring Account 0083 for more
than one year before they filed this lawsuit. Over a year passed from the date
a reasonable person should have discovered the negligence. See id.AFFIRMED.
7