BlueTeam Roofing, LLC v. Vincent Piazza, Jr. and Sons Seafood, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BLUETEAM ROOFING, LLC, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-931
VINCENT PIAZZA JR. & SONS
SEAFOOD, INC.
SECTION “O”
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arises out of a contractual dispute between Plaintiff Sendero
Restoration Services, LLC (“Sendero”) and Defendant Vincent Piazza Jr. & Sons
Seafood, Inc. (“Piazza”). On March 15, 2023, Sendero’s subcontractor, co-Plaintiff
BlueTeam Roofing, LLC (“BlueTeam”), filed this action against Piazza, asserting a
claim for breach of contract and a claim in the alternative for unjust enrichment.1
The complaint was later amended to include Sendero as a plaintiff.2 According to
Plaintiffs, Piazza elected to terminate the parties’ agreement without the “good
cause” required under the contract, triggering a liquidated damages provision.3
Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages of $566,791.35 for their breach of contract claim
and attorneys’ fees.4 Plaintiffs also assert a claim in the alternative for unjust
enrichment for the materials and services provided to Piazza for which Plaintiffs were
allegedly not paid.5
1 ECF No. 1.
2 ECF Nos. 14, 35; ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, r-v.
3 ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 20-21.
4 ECF No. 35 ¶¶ 22-26.
5 Id. ¶¶ 27-31.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 28

2
From January 20-21, 2026 the Court held a bench trial. The Court has
carefully considered the testimony of all witnesses and the exhibits entered into
evidence during the trial, as well as the record in this matter. Pursuant to Rule 52 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court enters the following Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law. To the extent that any finding of fact may be construed as a
conclusion of law, the Court hereby adopts it as such. To the extent any conclusion of
law may be construed as a finding of fact, the Court hereby adopts it as such.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff Sendero is a general contractor specializing in commercial
restoration, roofing, and exterior repairs. Co-Plaintiff BlueTeam is a contractor
specializing in commercial roofing repair and replacement.6
2. Piazza is a wholesale seafood distributor with a facility in Elmwood,
Louisiana.7 Piazza’s facilities were damaged during Hurricane Ida in 2021.8
3. On or about September 14, 2021, Sendero and Piazza entered into a
contract titled the “Restoration Services Agreement” (the “Restoration Contract”).9
4. Under the Restoration Contract, Piazza gave Sendero “exclusive rights”
to repair its property. Sendero in turn agreed to provide repair services as outlined
therein.10 Respecting the scope of the services, Piazza “affirm[ed] that Sendero will
6 ECF No. 96 at 2 (Joint Pretrial Order).
7 Id. Uncontested Material Facts, a.
8 Id. Uncontested Material Facts, b.
9 Id. Uncontested Material Facts, c.
10 Pl. Ex. 1 (Restoration Contract).
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 28

3
have the right per this Agreement to perform all the work associated with [Piazza’s]
primary building and primary building roof[.]”11
5. Discussions occurred between Piazza’s Chief Financial Officer, Ms.
Barbara Hirsch (“Ms. Hirsch”), and Sendero’s Manager, Mr. Ned Vaughn Scott (“Mr.
Scott”), before the signing of the Restoration Contract. The parties negotiated several
of the contract’s provisions and exchanged drafts before signing the operative
contract.12
6. In an earlier draft of the Restoration Contract, Piazza proposed
language that would enable it to “reserve[] the right to limit the amount of work to
be done [by Sendero] based upon current needs and future expansion plans.”
However, “[a]t no time will the amount of work to be designated to Sendero for repairs
be less than 30% of the overall total of the insurance settlement.”13
7. Sendero rejected the inclusion of this provision. Mr. Scott testified that
30% of Piazza’s future insurance settlement would not cover the cost of the repairs
Sendero would need to perform to repair Piazza’s roof and building.14 The provision
ultimately was not included in the final, signed draft of the Restoration Contract.15
8. Several sections of the executed Restoration Contract are relevant to
this dispute. In particular:
11 Id. § 1.
12 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Testimony of Barbara Hirsch; Pl. Ex. A (Executed Restoration
Contract); Pl. Ex. B (Draft Restoration Contract).
13 Pl. Ex. B; Testimony of Vaughn Scott;
14 Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
15 Pl. Ex. A; Testimony of Barbara Hirsch; Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 28

4
9. The Work: In Section 1 of Restoration Contract, Piazza agreed that
Sendero
will have the right per this Agreement to perform all the work
associated with the primary building and primary building roof
with the exception of the refrigeration which will require
negotiation with the Company’s preferred vendor.16
10. Initial Evaluation: Section 1.1 of Restoration Contract provided that
Sendero will investigate and evaluate all of the damages to the
Subject Property and will provide [Piazza] and [Piazza’s]
insurance carrier with the estimate of a) the scope of work and b)
the costs attendant to such work. This estimate will encompass
the work and costs needed to return the Subject Property to its
condition prior to the damages.17
11. Payment: Section 2 of the Restoration Contract provided that the
“amount payable to Sendero . . . is defined as the ‘Agreed Amount’ and is ascertained
by reference to the insurance carrier’s damage calculations and other Agreement
Documents.”18 The contract provided for a staggered payment schedule that would
require Piazza to pay proportions of the “Agreed Amount” as Sendero began and
progressed its work on the project.19
12. Assignment and Subcontracting: Section 7 of the Restoration Contract
permitted Sendero to “sub-contract services provided hereunder without prior
written consent of [Piazza].” Neither party, however, was permitted to assign the
contract without the prior written consent of the other party, “which shall not be
16 Pl. Ex. 1 § 1.
17 Id. § 1.1.
18 Id. § 2.
19 Id. § 2.1.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 28

5
unreasonably withheld or delayed.”20 Mr. Scott testified that it was important to
Sendero, as a general contractor, to have the ability to subcontract the work to its
subcontractors without requiring permission from the client.21
13. Termination of Agreement: Section 6.1 permitted Piazza to elect to
terminate the Restoration Contract “if good cause is determined, such as in the event
that Sendero substantially breaches the terms of this Agreement.”22
14. Liquidated Damages: Section 6.1 also provided that if Piazza
cancels this Agreement, without good cause, the Parties agree
that Sendero would be entitled to liquidated damages for its out-
of-pocket expenses and lost profits. The Parties agree that a
reasonable liquidated damages amount would be forty-five
percent (45%) of the Agreed Amount of this Agreement.23
15. In a prior draft of the Restoration Contract, Piazza proposed a liquidated
damages provision of 25% of the Agreed Amount.24 Sendero rejected this percentage
and proposed 45%. Mr. Scott testified that 25% liquidated damages would not cover
the cost to do the work. The parties ultimately agreed to a 45% liquidated damages
provision in the executed version of the Restoration Contract.25
16. Governing Law: Section 8 provided that the Restoration Contract shall
be “governed by, construed, enforced in accordance with” Texas law.26 The parties
20 Id. § 7.
21 Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
22 Id. § 6.1.
23 Id.
24 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Pl. Ex. B § 6.1.
25 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Pl. Ex. A § 6.1.
26 Id. § 8.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 28

6
have jointly stipulated Texas law shall govern the dispute between Piazza and
Sendero.27
17. A few weeks after the parties signed the Restoration Contract, Sendero
prepared an initial estimate valuing Piazza’s hurricane-related damage at
$1,192,468.13.28 Sendero later prepared a revised estimate dated December 3, 2021
valuing the damages at $1,287,246.15.29
18. By letter dated October 29, 2021, Piazza’s insurer—Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London—through its adjuster, Minuteman Adjusters,
advised Piazza that it valued the loss at merely $291,229.30. Minuteman Adjusters
subsequently issued an initial payment to Piazza of $210,116.57. Piazza deposited
the $210,116.57 payment into its account on or about November 12, 2021.30
19. Piazza disputed Minuteman Adjusters’ initial valuation of $210,116.57.
Sendero and Piazza did not schedule any work to begin on Piazza’s roof at this time
because that amount was not enough to cover the damages to the property.31
20. In December 2021, Sendero sold certain assets to co-plaintiff BlueTeam.
BlueTeam was to be responsible for any new construction projects going forward. As
part of that transaction, however, Sendero was left in place as an entity to fulfill its
existing contractual obligations. Once Sendero’s existing contractual obligations were
complete, Sendero was to dissolve.32
27 ECF No. 44 ¶ 2 (Joint Pretrial Stipulations).
28 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, d; Pl. Ex. E at 22.
29 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, d; Pl. Ex. H at 30.
30 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, e-f; Pl. Ex. F.
31 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, g; Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
32 Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 28

7
21. Certain of Sendero’s existing contracts were carved out from BlueTeam’s
purchase of Sendero’s assets, including the Restoration Contract. As permitted under
the Restoration Contract, Sendero engaged BlueTeam as a subcontractor to assist
with Piazza’s insurance claim and perform the repair work to Piazza’s facility.33
Sendero thus remained ultimately responsible for performance under the Restoration
Contract, although the actual work was to be performed by its subcontractor,
BlueTeam.34
22. In January 2022, Piazza and BlueTeam began regularly exchanging
emails regarding the insurance claim, documentation, scope, and appraisal strategy.
From January through November 2022, Piazza exchanged approximately 50 emails
with BlueTeam.35
23. In March 2022, BlueTeam recommended that Piazza retain third-party
appraiser Ray Demerritt to assist with Piazza’s insurance claim. Piazza’s insurance
policy provided for an appraisal process in the event the policyholder and insurer
disagreed on the amount of the loss. The policy provided that each party would
appoint an impartial appraiser. If the appraisers could not agree on the amount of
loss, an umpire would decide the amount of the loss. The umpire’s decision would be
binding on all parties.36
33 Pl. Ex. 1 § 7 (Section 7 of the Restoration Contract permits Sendero to “sub-contract services
provided hereunder without prior written consent of Customer.”); Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
34 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; ECF No. 99 at 15 (Order & Reasons on Cross-Motions for
Summary Judgment).
35 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Pl. Ex. K (Blueteam-Piazza emails).
36 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, h-i.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 28

8
24. In May 2022, when Piazza’s insurer still had not approved the full claim
value, BlueTeam again recommended that Piazza retain Mr. Demeritt.37 BlueTeam
explained that the cost of the appraiser would come out of the total award and thus
would not cost Piazza any additional funds. Piazza agreed to use Mr. Demeritt as an
appraiser.38
25. BlueTeam provided Mr. Demeritt with photographs, measurements,
estimates, and other materials supporting Piazza’s damages claim.39
26. Piazza’s insurance claim proceeded to appraisal, and an umpire was
appointed.40
27. On November 8, 2022, the umpire signed an “Appraisal Award” valuing
Piazza’s total claim value at $1,229,598.96.41 Piazza was satisfied with this amount.42
28. In a letter dated December 7, 2022, the adjuster for Piazza’s insurer,
Minuteman Adjusters, acknowledged the Appraisal Award. Minuteman Adjusters
advised it would issue a supplemental payment of $967,482.39. When combined with
the prior payment of $210,116.57 and Piazza’s $52,000 deductible, that total equaled
$1,229,598.96.43
37 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Testimony of Barbara Hirsch; Pl. Ex. K-32.
38 ECF No. 96, Uncontested Material Facts, h; Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Testimony of
Barbara Hirsch.
39 Pl. Ex. AA; Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
40 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, j.
41 Id. Uncontested Material Facts, k.
42 Id. Uncontested Material Facts, l.
43 Id. Uncontested Material Facts, m.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 28

9
29. Minuteman Adjusters issued Piazza a check in the amount of
$967,482.39, dated December 7, 2022.44 Piazza received the check sometime around
the end of December.45
30. According to Mr. Scott, Piazza never told BlueTeam about the appraisal
award. Rather, the appraiser, Mr. Demeritt, informed BlueTeam about the final
award of $1,229,598.96.46
31. Barbara Hirsch testified that after she received the check from
Minuteman for $967,482.39, BlueTeam pressured her to turn over the entire check
to BlueTeam.47
32. Mr. Scott disputed Ms. Hirsch’s testimony. He testified that BlueTeam
did not pressure Piazza to turn over the entire check because the Restoration
Contract called for a staggered payment schedule.48
33. The Court considers Mr. Scott’s testimony credible on this issue and
finds that BlueTeam did not pressure Piazza to turn over the entire check. The
Restoration Contract supports Mr. Scott’s testimony insofar as it shows the parties
agreed to a staggered payment schedule. For example, only the first 30% of the
Agreed Amount would be paid by Piazza to Sendero “upon mobilization of the work”
and the final 10% of the Agreed Amount would be paid upon Piazza’s “final
inspection” of the completed repair work.49 Further, Ms. Hirsch explained that Piazza
44 Id. Uncontested Material Facts, n.
45 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
46 Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
47 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
48 Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
49 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Testimony of Barbara Hirsch; Pl. Ex. A § 2.1 (“
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 28

10
ultimately used the check—which was made out to Piazza—as a curtailment on their
mortgage loan.50
34. After issuance of the November 8, 2022 Appraisal Award, Plaintiffs
began to order materials for its upcoming work repairing Piazza’s roof.51
35. After learning of the successful appraisal award and receiving the
insurance check, Piazza sought to delay the project’s start. Ms. Hirsch and Mr. Piazza
testified that they were not ready for BlueTeam to repair the roof because they had
additional questions and concerns. Ms. Hirsch testified that she believed Mr. Scott
was not interested in trying to understand Piazza’s concerns or answer her questions.
Instead, she felt he was only trying to push the contract forward.52
36. Mr. Scott disputed this account. He testified that neither he nor his team
ever received questions from Piazza that went unanswered or that prevented
scheduling the work. Several exhibits support Mr. Scott’s testimony. These include
emails from BlueTeam contemporaneously offering to answer any questions that
Piazza had or to discuss any issues throughout November 2022 to January 2023.53
For example, in January 2023, Mr. Scott offered to have a second preconstruction
meeting with Piazza to discuss the upcoming repair work and answer any questions.54
Ms. Hirsch testified that she could not name a specific communication or example of
a question that went unanswered by BlueTeam.55
50 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
51 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Pl. Ex. DD; Pl. Ex. K50; Pl. Ex. R.
52 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch; Testimony of Brian Piazza.
53 See, e.g., Pl. Ex. K-46, K-49, K50, Ex. P.
54 Pl. Ex. R.
55 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 28

11
37. According to Mr. Piazza, Piazza’s relationship with Sendero/BlueTeam
began to fall apart when a BlueTeam representative attended an in-person meeting
at Piazza’s facilities in late 2022. Mr. Piazza and Ms. Hirsch testified that the
BlueTeam representative was pushy and rude. The representative attempted to have
them schedule the repair work and told them that BlueTeam had ordered supplies
for the project.56
38. Mr. Pizza testified that after that meeting, he began reaching out to
other roofing companies. According to Mr. Piazza, other companies informed him that
BlueTeam was overcharging Piazza for the cost of the repairs. The other companies
told Mr. Piazza they would do the same work for far cheaper.57
39. Ms. Hirsch also testified that she had issues with certain people she was
dealing with around the time the appraisal had concluded, specifically, Mr. Scott. Ms.
Hirsch had initially thought Mr. Scott would only be involved in the contract
negotiations, and not in the actual repair work. Ms. Hirsch felt Mr. Scott was pushy
and dismissive. Ms. Hirsch testified that she preferred to work with another
Sendero/BlueTeam member, Cy Bellamy, who had left BlueTeam at some point in
2022 due to his wife’s illness. She also enjoyed working with another representative,
Ryan Cowles,58 who also left the company at some point in 2022. Ms. Hirsch
confirmed, however, that she did not have an issue with BlueTeam doing the repair
56 Testimony of Brian Piazza.
57 Testimony of Brian Piazza.
58 Ms. Hirsch could not remember Ryan’s last name. Ryan Cowles is cc’d on several emails
between Sendero and Piazza. The Court assumes this is the person Ms. Hirsch is referring to. See Pl.
Ex. J.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 28

12
work on Piazza’s facilities; rather, her issues were specifically with Mr. Scott and the
pushy representative at the meeting in late 2022.59
40. On January 5, 2023, Mr. Piazza emailed Ms. Hirsch and his brother,
Nicholas Piazza. The email stated:
Blue Team called asking about roof. I told them we were still
looking over a few things. In so many words, they said that there
really is nothing to look over. We have a signed contract. I told
them we are looking closer at contract in regards to our rights. He
then said that they are not just going away. They had a contract
with us.
We need to give contract to lawyer to look over asap to see our
rights, or we need to decide what else to do.
He said that he will be calling back tomorrow and Monday, but
we need to get rolling.60
41. Mr. Scott testified that he recalled the January 5, 2023 phone call with
Mr. Piazza referenced in the email. Mr. Scott confirmed that the email accurately
reflected the discussion on the call. According to Mr. Scott, Piazza did not share any
specific issues it had with BlueTeam during the call.61
42. According to Mr. Piazza, at this point, Piazza was not necessarily
looking to exit the contract. Rather, they needed time and were anxious about
Plaintiffs’ personnel changes on the project. Ms. Hirsch testified that on the call, Mr.
Scott threatened to sue if Piazza did not honor the contract, but Piazza was not
looking to cancel the contract at that time.62
59 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
60 Pl. Ex. Q.
61 Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
62 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 28

13
43. A little over a week later, on January 13, 2023, the parties had another
telephone call. Mr. Scott testified that Ms. Hirsch, Brian Piazza, and Nicholas Piazza
told him they had no obligation to use BlueTeam for the repair job and were cancelling
the Restoration Contract. According to Mr. Scott, the Piazza team did not give a
reason for the termination.63
44. Mr. Scott emailed the BlueTeam CFO and an attorney for BlueTeam
immediately after the call with Piazza. The subject line of the email read: “Vincent
Piazza Seafood – Breaking Contract.” Mr. Scott’s email stated:
Vincent Piazza has gone sideways and they are now saying they
have no obligation to use us. I am just off a conference call with
the two owners and the CFO. We have worked on this project for
over a year and finally had successful outcome with the carrier.
Please find attached the agreement in place with Piazza. Section
6.1 has the 45% liquidated damages fee. We need to get a letter
out to them asap and I do not want to let this one go. I would like
to pursue this to the fullest extent possible.64
45. Ms. Hirsch and Mr. Piazza disputed Mr. Scott’s characterization of the
January 13, 2023 call. According to their testimony, they did not cancel the contract
on that call.65
46. On January 18, 2023, BlueTeam’s attorney sent a letter to Piazza (the
“Demand Letter”). The Demand Letter stated that BlueTeam was ready to proceed
with the work on Piazza’s roof but that “without cause, [Piazza] ha[s] informed
[BlueTeam] that [it] wish[es] to terminate the Contract.” The letter reminded Piazza
63 Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
64 Pl. Ex. S.
65 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch; Testimony of Brian Piazza.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 28

14
of the 45% liquidated damages provision for cancellation without good cause. The
letter demanded Piazza withdraw its termination and schedule the repair work
within 10 days.66
47. The Court credits Mr. Scott’s testimony and finds the evidence shows
Piazza terminated the contract on the January 13, 2023 call. The Court found Mr.
Scott’s testimony on this issue more credible than Ms. Hirsch’s and Mr. Piazza’s in
part due to Mr. Scott’s demeanor and directness when answering questions. This
contrasted with Ms. Hirsch and Mr. Piazza, who appeared more evasive. Mr. Scott’s
testimony is also supported by several contemporaneous pieces of evidence: (i) Mr.
Scott’s email with the subject line “Vincent Piazza – Breaking Contract” to
BlueTeam’s attorney and CFO shortly after the January 13, 2023 call; (ii) BlueTeam’s
attorney’s January 18, 2023 demand letter stating Piazza had informed BlueTeam it
wished to cancel the contract; and (iii) Mr. Piazza’s January 5, 2023 email indicating
Piazza was “looking closer at the contract in regards to [its] rights” and would “need
to decide what else to do.”
48. The Court does not find credible Mr. Piazza’s or Ms. Hirsch’s testimony
that they did not cancel the contract on the January 13, 2023 call. Neither Mr. Piazza
nor Ms. Hirsch had a straightforward or believable explanation as to why Mr. Scott
thought Piazza had cancelled the contract on January 13th. According to the January
18, 2023 Demand Letter, Mr. Scott was still interested in giving Piazza the
opportunity to revoke its termination and to move forward with the work.67 Mr.
66 ECF No. 96 Uncontested material facts, o; Pl. Ex. U.
67 Pl. Ex. U.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 14 of 28

15
Piazza, by contrast, testified that by this point he had already contacted other roofing
companies and had discovered he could get a better price with a different company.
Ms. Hirsch also testified that Piazza was interested in using the insurance money in
conjunction with an expansion of Piazza’s facilities, even though this was not a part
of the Restoration Contract.68 Notably, this ability to use the insurance money to
expand Piazza’s other facilities—and not just for the primary building roof repair—
was a draft provision in the Restoration Contract that was proposed by Piazza and
rejected by Sendero.69
49. The Court thus concludes the weight of the evidence supports the
finding that Piazza cancelled the Restoration Contract on January 13, 2023.
50. In addition to asserting that Piazza had cancelled the Restoration
Contract, the January 18, 2023 Demand Letter also stated: “This law firm represents
BlueTeam Roofing, LLC f/k/a Sendero Restoration Services, LLC (hereafter
‘BlueTeam).” In a footnote, the letter explained: “After the contract was entered into,
Sendero was purchased by BlueTeam Roofing, LLC, whereupon BlueTeam became
the owner of and successor in interest to Sendero. Sendero now operates under the
BlueTeam name.”70
51. Ms. Hirsch testified that Piazza only decided to cancel the contract after
it received the January 18, 2023 letter. According to Ms. Hirsch, she had an internal
meeting on January 20, 2023 with Brian Piazza and Nicholas Piazza. In that meeting,
68 Testimony of Vincent Piazza; Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
69 Testimony of Vaughn Scott; Testimony of Barbara Hirsch; Pl. Ex. A (Restoration Contract);
Pl. Ex. B (Prior Draft).
70 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, o.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 15 of 28

16
the group agreed to contact an attorney and discuss whether to cancel the contract.
According to Ms. Hirsch, after speaking with an attorney, Piazza decided to cancel
the contract.71
52. Piazza responded to the January 18, 2023 Demand Letter on February
1, 2023, in a letter authored by its attorney, Dayal Reddy (the “Response Letter”).72
53. In the Response Letter, Piazza stated it did “not believe there is any
privity of contract between [Piazza] and BlueTeam Roofing, LLC” because Piazza had
a contract “with Sendero Roofing, LLC.” The Response Letter explained that Piazza’s
contract with Sendero “specifically require[d] written consent prior to assignment of
the contract” and that “[n]o prior written consent has been provided or suggested thus
far from Sendero.” In the letter, Piazza took the position that “no contract exists”
between Piazza and “Sendero and/or Blue Team.”73
54. Ms. Hirsch testified that this language in the February 1, 2023 Response
Letter expressed, for the first time, Piazza’s termination of the Restoration
Contract.74
55. Plaintiffs did not receive this Response Letter until it was filed into the
record with Piazza’s April 25, 2023 Answer.75
56. Piazza deposited the insurance check for $967,482.39 in its bank account
on or about February 3, 2023. Piazza thus deposited the check two days after its
71 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
72 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, p.
73 Pl. Ex. V.
74 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
75 Uncontested Material Facts, p; see also Pl. Ex. V.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 16 of 28

17
attorney had responded to BlueTeam’s Demand Letter and over one month after
Piazza had received the check from its insurer.76
57. Ms. Hirsch testified that Piazza did not deposit the check sooner because
the check was made out to a Piazza entity that did not own Piazza’s building. After
speaking with the bank, Piazza was able to use the funds as a curtailment on the
mortgage. The bank would release back the funds for building repairs only.77
58. On March 15, 2023, BlueTeam filed a complaint asserting breach of
contract and an alternative claim for unjust enrichment against Piazza (the “Original
Complaint”).78 The Original Complaint described BlueTeam as the “successor-by-
assignment to Sendero Restoration Services, LLC” and stated that “[i]n conjunction
with its purchase of the assets of Sendero Restoration Services, LLC” BlueTeam “was
assigned and assumed . . . the September 14, 2021 Restoration Services Agreement
referenced herein.”79
59. Piazza filed an Answer to the Original Complaint that denied the
allegations. Attaching its February 1, 2023 Response Letter as an exhibit, Piazza
stated that “[u]ndersigned counsel responded with a letter outlining why plaintiffs
were not entitled to the recovery they seek” due to the contract’s assignment to
BlueTeam.80
76 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Facts, n.
77 Testimony Barbara Hirsch.
78 ECF No. 1.
79 ECF No. 96; Uncontested Material Facts, s.
80 ECF No. 9 at 2; ECF No. 9-1.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 17 of 28

18
60. BlueTeam—now aware for the first time of Piazza’s stance that Piazza
had terminated the Restoration Contract for good cause due to the contract’s
supposed assignment—filed, with Piazza’s consent, a First Amended Complaint. The
First Amended Complaint added Sendero as a plaintiff and revised the language that
Sendero had “assigned” the contract to BlueTeam. Instead, the First Amended
Complaint stated BlueTeam was “assigned the task of completing” the Restoration
Contract.81
61. Several months later, Plaintiffs BlueTeam and Sendero filed an
unopposed motion seeking leave to amend the complaint once again.82 This time,
Plaintiffs sought to “clarify that Sendero Restoration Services, LLC remained
responsible for the agreed upon restoration work to property owned by [Piazza].” The
Court granted the motion and admitted the Second Amended Complaint, which
clarifies that “Sendero remained responsible for providing the services under the
Contract, while BTR (BlueTeam) was permissibly subcontracted to perform services
under the Contract.”83
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the
parties are citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
81 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Fact, s; ECF No. 12 (unopposed motion for leave to file
First Amended Complaint); ECF No. 14 (First Amended Complaint).
82 ECF No. 96 Uncontested Material Fact, u.
83 Id. Uncontested Material Fact, v.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 18 of 28

19
2. The Restoration Contract contains a Texas choice-of-law provision.84
The parties have jointly stipulated Texas law shall govern the dispute between Piazza
and Sendero.85 Where, as here, the Court’s jurisdiction is based on diversity of
citizenship, the Court applies the substantive law of the forum state, Louisiana. See
Wisznia Co. v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 759 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2014). Under
Louisiana law, contractual choice-of-law provisions are valid unless the chosen law
contravenes the public policy of the state whose law would otherwise apply. La. Civ.
Code art. 3540. No party has contested the validity of the Restoration Agreement’s
choice of Texas law to govern their agreement. Nor has any party argued that
enforcing the provision would contravene the public policy of any state. Thus, the
parties’ choice of Texas law to govern their agreement applies to the breach of contract
claim.
3. The parties do not dispute that they entered into a valid, enforceable
contract under Texas law. See Arshad v. Am. Express Bank, FSB, 580 S.W.3d 798,
804 (Tex. App. 2019).
4. In construing a contract under Texas law, the court’s role is to “ascertain
the true intentions of the parties as expressed in the writing itself.” Italian Cowboy
Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323, 333 (Tex. 2011). “This
analysis begins with the contract’s express language.” Murphy Expl. & Prod. Co.-USA
v. Adams, 560 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2018), as corrected (Nov. 30, 2019). “We ‘give
terms their plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless the instrument
84 Pl. Ex. 1 § 8.
85 ECF No. 44 (Joint Pretrial Stipulations).
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 19 of 28

20
shows that the parties used them in a technical or different sense.’” Id. (quoting
Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996)).
5. “‘If the Court determines that the language can be given a certain or
definite legal meaning or interpretation, then the contract is not ambiguous and we
will construe it as a matter of law.’” Crane v. Rave Rest. Grp., Inc., 2023 WL 3735567,
at *3 (5th Cir. May 31, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Alicea v. Curie Bldg., L.L.C., 632
S.W.3d 142, 153 (Tex. App.—El Paso, no pet. h.)). “‘However, if the provision contains
more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous and creates an issue of
fact.’” Id. (citation omitted).
6. The Restoration Contract provides for the customer, Piazza, to elect to
terminate the contract if it so chooses:
Customer may terminate this Agreement, if good cause is
determined, such as in the event that Sendero substantially
breaches the terms of this Agreement. If Customer cancels this
Agreement, without good cause, the Parties agree that Sendero
would be entitled to liquidated damages for its out-of-pocket
expenses and lost profits.86
7. The Restoration Contract does not define “good cause” or “substantially
breaches.”87
8. The contract does not expressly state whether breach of Section 7, which
provides that “[n]either party may sell, assign, transfer, convey, pledge, encumber or
otherwise dispose of this Agreement, or any of the rights or duties under this
86 Pl. Ex. 1 § 6.1 (emphasis added).
87 See generally id.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 20 of 28

21
Agreement, without the prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed,” constitutes a substantial breach of the contract.
9. Under Texas law, a party is only discharged from its obligation to
perform under a contract where there has been a “material” breach by the other party.
U.S. Enercorp, Ltd. v. SDC Montana Bakken Expl., LLC, 2015 WL 1310359, at *7
(W.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2015) (“Under Texas law, a party’s obligations to perform under
a contract are only discharged upon breach by the other party if the breach is
material.”) (citing Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co., 413 S.W.3d 750, 753 (Tex.
2013) (emphasis added)).
10. When a party commits a nonmaterial breach, however, the other party
“‘is not excused from future performance but may sue for the damages caused by the
breach.’” Bartush-Schnitzius Foods Co. v. Cimco Refrigeration, Inc., 518 S.W.3d 432,
436 (Tex. 2017) (citation omitted).
11. Whether a breach is material is a question of fact. See Matter of Dallas
Roadster, Ltd., 846 F.3d 112, 127 (5th Cir. 2017).
12. As noted, Section 6.1 of the Restoration Contract permits Piazza to
terminate the contract without paying liquidated damages “if good cause is
determined, such as in the event that Sendero substantially breaches the terms of
this Agreement.”88
13. The Court finds that the Restoration Contract’s “substantially breaches”
language tracks Texas law’s rule that a party is only discharged from its obligation
88 Pl. Ex. 1 § 6.1.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 21 of 28

22
to perform under a contract where the other party “material[ly] breach[ed]” the
contract. U.S. Enercorp, 2015 WL 1310359, at *7.
14. In other words, the Court finds that a “substantial[] breach[]” under the
Restoration Contract is tantamount to a “material” breach under Texas law. See id.
The Court notes that neither party objected to this understanding at closing
argument. Instead, both parties agreed “substantial breach” and “material breach”
are synonymous terms.
15. The Court therefore finds that if Piazza elects to terminate the
Restoration Contract for “good cause,” it must show Sendero “materially” breached
the Restoration Contract.
16. In Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Tex.
2004), the Supreme Court of Texas listed “five circumstances significant in
determining whether a failure to perform is material.” The five factors are:
a. the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of
the benefit which he reasonably expected;
b. the extent to which the injured party can be adequately
compensated for the part of that benefit of which he will be
deprived;
c. the extent to which the party failing to perform or to offer
to perform will suffer forfeiture;
d. the likelihood that the party failing to perform or to offer
to perform will cure his failure, taking account of the
circumstances including any reasonable assurances;
e. the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to
perform or to offer to perform comports with standards of
good faith and fair dealing.
Id.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 22 of 28

23
17. Recall that Piazza maintains it terminated the Restoration Contract for
the first time in the February 1, 2023 Response Letter (and not on the January 13,
2023 call). The Court, however, found that Piazza terminated the contract on the
January 13, 2023 call.89 See supra.
18. Even if Piazza did not cancel the contract on the January 13 call and
instead first cancelled the contract in the February 1, 2023 Response Letter, however,
the Court concludes that Plaintiffs did not commit a material breach under the
Mustang Pipeline, 134 S.W.3d at 199 factors that would justify Piazza’s February 1,
2023 cancellation. See id.
19. Piazza’s stated reasons for its termination of the Restoration Contract—
that is, its purported reasons Sendero materially or substantially breached the
contract—include: (1) the January 18, 2023 Demand Letter implying Sendero had
assigned (rather than subcontracted) the Restoration Contract to BlueTeam; (2) the
change in personnel at Sendero/BlueTeam, including the departure of Piazza’s
preferred contacts (Cy Bellamy and Ryan Cowles) and Ms. Hirsch’s personal dislike
of Mr. Scott; (3) the pressure tactics Mr. Scott and others at Sendero/BlueTeam
supposedly asserted on Piazza to schedule the repair work; (4) Mr. Scott and
Sendero/BlueTeam’s supposed refusal to answer Piazza’s outstanding questions.
89 Considering the five Mustang Pipeline factors, the Court concludes that Sendero/BlueTeam
did not commit a material breach before January 13, 2023. See id. The Court thus finds that Piazza
did not have “good cause” to terminate the Restoration Contract when it cancelled the contract on
January 13, 2023. Because the Court finds that Piazza did not have good cause to terminate the
contract even after receiving the January 18, 2023 letter, however, the Court need not analyze whether
Piazza had “good cause” to terminate by way of a “material breach” by Sendero/BlueTeam under
Mustang Pipeline prior to the January 13, 2023 call.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 23 of 28

24
20. The Court finds that Piazza’s purported reasons for termination fail to
show that Sendero/BlueTeam committed a material breach of the Restoration
Contract under the Mustang Pipeline factors that would provide it “good cause” to
terminate for the following reasons:
21. The January 18, 2023 Demand Letter: Neither Ms. Hirsch nor Mr.
Piazza could explain how the January 18, 2023 Demand Letter (which implied the
Restoration Contract had been assigned to BlueTeam) deprived Piazza of a
reasonably expected benefit. See Mustang Pipeline, 134 S.W.3d at 199. True, the
Demand Letter implied there may have been a technical breach of the contract’s
written-permission requirement for assignment of the contract. But under the
Restoration Contract, Sendero could subcontract the work without written
permission from Piazza.90 And Ms. Hirsch repeatedly testified that she did not have
an issue with BlueTeam in general, nor with BlueTeam doing the repair work on
Piazza’s building. Ms. Hirsch did not explain how a possible assignment of the
contract to BlueTeam—rather than a permissible subcontract—would deprive Piazza
of a benefit.
22. Further, Piazza did not suffer any “injury” from the deprivation of the
purported benefit, because the contract was not actually assigned; rather, any
implication in the Demand Letter that the contract was assigned was pure clerical
error. Any potential injury to Piazza thus could have been easily rectified with
clarification from Sendero/BlueTeam. In other words, there was a high likelihood of
90 Pl. Ex. A § 7.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 24 of 28

25
cure through reasonable assurances if Piazza had spoken to BlueTeam or sought
clarification about the Demand Letter’s assertion.
23. Finally, Sendero’s behavior comports with the standard of good faith and
fair dealing because its January 18, 2023 Demand Letter indicated it wished to honor
the contract by providing Piazza with an opportunity to schedule the work. Piazza,
on the other hand, showed a lack of good faith when it attempted to cancel the
contract in the February 1, 2023 Response Letter without providing Sendero an
opportunity to cure or to clarify the assignment issue. The January 18, 2023 Demand
Letter thus was not a material breach by Sendero and did not provide Piazza with
any “good cause” to terminate the contract. See id.
24. Personnel at Sendero/BlueTeam: Ms. Hirsch testified that she had
an issue with specific people (namely, Mr. Scott), who became more involved with the
performance of the Restoration Contract towards the end of 2022. According to Ms.
Hirsch, she preferred to work with other personnel at Sendero/BlueTeam, namely,
Cy Bellamy and Ryan Cowles. Under the Mustang Pipeline factors, Ms. Hirsch’s
issues with specific personnel at Sendero/BlueTeam do not rise to the level of material
breach. The Restoration Contract contains no language guaranteeing certain
employees would be staffed on Piazza’s job. Ms. Hirsch did not have a reasonable
expectation that Piazza could avoid working with Mr. Scott—he is the owner of
Sendero and was involved in the contract negotiation from the beginning. Moreover,
even if Piazza’s contract had been assigned from Sendero to BlueTeam (rather than
subcontracted), Mr. Scott would have remained involved: he remained the owner of
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 25 of 28

26
Sendero while also an employee of BlueTeam after the asset purchase.91 Ms. Hirsch
testified that she never vocalized her issues to anyone at Sendero or BlueTeam about
Mr. Scott. Nor did she request to work with other personnel at Sendero/BlueTeam.92
A party’s unvoiced personal preference to avoid working with certain specific people
employed by a contractual counterparty does not constitute material breach on the
counterparty’s part. See id.
25. Pressure Tactics/Outstanding Questions: Any supposed pressure
that Mr. Scott exerted on Ms. Hirsch and Mr. Piazza to move forward with scheduling
the repair work does not constitute a material breach on Sendero’s part. Under the
terms of the contract, Piazza was required to schedule the work “within thirty (30)
days of Customer’s receipt of any payments from the insurance carrier[.]”93 The
appraisal award was issued in November 2022.94 Ms. Hirsch admitted that she
received the check with the full balance of $967,482.39 from the insurer’s adjuster in
late December.95 Ms. Hirsch also admitted she was not ready to schedule the work in
January. The exhibits reveal that Mr. Scott was making courteous attempts to move
forward with the contract in good faith around this time, including scheduling a
preconstruction meeting and asking for clarification of Piazza’s preferences for the
roof.96 Mr. Scott’s attempts to move forward with the contract’s terms—and Ms.
Hirsch’s and Mr. Piazza’s reluctance to do so—is not a deprivation of an expected
91 Testimony of Vaughn Scott.
92 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
93 Pl. Ex. A § 3.
94 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch; Vaughn Scott.
95 Testimony of Barbara Hirsch.
96 Pl. Ex. R; Ex. K46-50.
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 26 of 28

27
benefit for Piazza. Rather, it shows Piazza was failing to perform under the contract’s
terms—not Sendero. In addition, the Court found Mr. Scott’s testimony more credible
on this issue due to Mr. Scott’s forthcoming demeanor, in contrast to Ms. Hirsch and
Mr. Piazza’s vague answers regarding issues with the project.
26. In sum, Sendero has successfully shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that Piazza terminated the Restoration Contract without “good cause”
because Sendero did not materially or substantially breach the contract. Piazza
therefore owes Plaintiffs $566,791.35 in liquidated damages for their breach of
contract claim.
27. In their complaint, Plaintiffs also request attorneys’ fees under Section
6.2 of the Restoration Contract.97 The parties have not engaged in briefing or
argument regarding Plaintiffs’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees.98 The Court finds that
Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the language of the Restoration
Contract. The Court acknowledges that Section 6.2 provides that “[i]n the event
Sendero is required to seek the services of an attorney to collect these payments,
[Piazza] will pay for the reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs
attributable to such legal proceeding.99 But “these payments” refers to payments
sought by Sendero pursuant to Section 6.2, which Sendero can pursue only in the
event “Sendero [] terminate[s] this Agreement” and are limited to “any past-due
97 ECF No. 32 ¶¶ 25-26.
98 See, e.g., ECF Nos. 48 (Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment); 49 (Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment); 103 (Plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law); 104
(Defendant’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law).
99 Pl. Ex. A § 6.2 (emphasis added).
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 27 of 28

28
payments for work done and materials provided.”100 Plaintiffs, however, have
consistently sought liquidated damages under Section 6.1 of the contract, which
applies only if Piazza terminates the agreement, and does not provide for attorneys’
fees. The Court has already found that Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages
under Section 6.1. The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiffs are not entitled to
attorneys’ fees under Section 6.2 of the Restoration Contract.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court finds
that Piazza is liable to Plaintiffs for $566,791.35 in liquidated damages. Plaintiffs’
alternative claim of unjust enrichment is dismissed. The Court hereby renders
judgment to that effect.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of March, 2026.
BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
100 Id. (emphasis added).
Case 2:23-cv-00931-BSL-KWR Document 112 Filed 03/30/26 Page 28 of 28