govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-01692-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
FIRST HORIZON BANK CIVIL ACTION 
VERSUS NO. 25-1692 
LIONEL NELSON SECTION “O” 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 Plaintiff First Horizon Bank has filed a motion 1 for default judgment against 
Defendant Lionel Nelson. First Horizon Bank does not set forth the applicable law in 
its motion, nor does it explain how the complaint’s well -pleaded factual allegations 
satisfy the applicable law. A default judgment should not be entered unless the 
judgment is “supported by well-pleaded allegations and . . . ha[s] a sufficient basis in 
the pleadings.” Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490, 496 (5th Cir. 
2015) (citation omitted). The Court does not hold the defendant in default “‘to [have] 
admit[ted] conclusions of law. ’” Id. (citation omitted); see also S. Lafourche Bank & 
Tr. Co. v. M/V Jenny W, 2022 WL 20055601 (E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2022) (granting motion 
for default judgment after previously denying motion for failing to explain or apply 
relevant law). 
Moreover, plaintiff has not provided legal authority or a method of calculation 
with respect to its request for “ attorneys’ fees and court costs as of September 29, 
2025 in the amount of $8,838.25 [.]”2 See MSMM Eng ’g, LLC v. Carr , 2022 WL 
22858898, at *5 (E.D. La. June 2, 2022) (“[E]ven if a contract stipulates to attorneys’ 
 
1 ECF No. 10. 
2 Id. at 4. 

2 
 
fees, the fee is still subject to a reasonableness determination by the court. ”) (citing 
Graham v. Sequoya Corp., 478 So. 2d 1223, 1225 (La. 1985)). 
Accordingly, 
IT IS ORDERED that First Horizon Bank’s motion3 for default judgment 
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of May, 2026. 
BRANDON S. LONG 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
3 Id. 

Passage view · GavelSight