Case Name: HALLMARK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, doing business as Paul Davis Restoration of Southwest Houston, Plaintiff-Appellee v. 6320 HAYNE BLVD., INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-02
Citations: 312 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 08-30806
Parties: HALLMARK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, doing business as Paul Davis Restoration of Southwest Houston, Plaintiff-Appellee v. 6320 HAYNE BLVD., INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
HALLMARK CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, doing business as Paul Davis Restoration of Southwest Houston, Plaintiff-Appellee v. 6320 HAYNE BLVD., INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30806
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 2, 2009.
Geoffrey Pivateau Unknown, Lee Morgan Peacocke, Larzelere Picou Wells Simpson Lonero, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Victoria Lennox Bartels, Law Office of Joseph C. Bartels, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this diversity action, 6320 Hayne Blvd., Inc., appeals the judgment, entered following a two-day bench trial, in favor of Hallmark Capital Group, LLC. This action concerns post-Hurricane Katrina emergency repairs by Hallmark to Appellant's property.
Appellant contends the district court erred by finding no contract existed between the parties. In the alternative, it contends the district court erred by awarding Hallmark compensation under the equitable doctrine of actio de in rem verso (a Louisiana-law term for unjust enrichment) in the absence of sufficiently detailed proof of Hallmark's expenses and in an amount greater than the benefit Appellant derived from Hallmark's work. In that regard, the district court awarded far less in damages than the amount sought by Hallmark.
"On appeal from a judgment after a bench trial, we review the findings of fact for clear error and the legal issues de novo." Houston Exploration Co. v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 359 F.3d 777, 779 (5th Cir.2004). Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court's detailed and well-reasoned Order and Reasons of 20 March 2008, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.