Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

COMPUTERSHARE TRUST CIVIL ACTION

COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Trustee for Registered Holders of

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage

Securities Corp., Multifamily Morigage

Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2022-SB102

VERSUS

TIGER GARDENS, LLC NO. 25-00890-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion For Default Judgment (Doc. 18).!

The Motion is unopposed. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs Motion will be

GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Defendant Tiger Gardens, LLC’s alleged failure to repay

a commercial loan in the original principal amount of $1,675,000.00 (the “Loan”).

(Doc. 1 at 1). Plaintiff alleges that the Loan is secured by liens encumbering an

apartment complex commonly known as Tiger Gardens Apartments, located at

4639 Tigerland Ave, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 (the “Property”). Ud. at 1-2).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant defaulted on the Loan by failing to make required

1 Plaintiff identifies itself as “Computershare Trust Company, National Association, not in

its individual capacity, but solely as trustee for the Registered Holders of J.P. Morgan Chase

Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Multifamily Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,

Series 2022-SB102.” (Doc. 1).

monthly payments when due, and as a result, all amounts owed to Plaintiff are

accelerated and due. (/d. at 2).

According to the Verified Complaint, the Property includes the following:

a) the Land located in East Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana,

bearing the following legal description:

TWO (2) CERTAIN LOTS OR PARCELS OF GROUND, together with

all the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in that subdivision

of the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, known as

Tigerland Acres, and being designated on the official subdivision map,

or file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for said parish

and state, as LOT NUMBERS SIXTY-TWO A (62-A) AND SIXTY-

THREE (68), said subdivision, said 101 having such measurements and

dimensions as shown on said map.

b) The Improvements.

c) The Fixtures.

d) The Personalty.

e) All current and future rights, including air rights, development rights,

zoning rights and other similar rights or interests, easements,

tenements, rights of way, strips and gores of land, streets, alleys, roads,

sewer rights, waters, watercourses and appurtenances related to or

benefiting the Land or the Improvements, or both, and all rights-of-way,

streets, alleys and roads which may have been or may in the future be

vacated;

f) All proceeds paid or to be paid by any insurer of the Land, the

Improvements, the Fixtures, the Personalty or any other part of the

Mortgaged Property, whether or not Borrower obtained the Insurance

pursuant to Plaintiffs requirement;

g) All awards, payments and other compensation made or to be made by

any municipal, state or federal authority with respect to the Land, the

Improvements, the Fixtures, the Personalty or any other part of the

Mortgaged Property, including any awards or settlements resulting

from Condemnation proceedings or the total or partial taking of the

Land, the Improvements, the Fixtures, the Personalty or any other part

of the Mortgaged Property under-the power of eminent domain or

otherwise and including any conveyance in lieu thereof;

h) All contracts, options and other agreements for the sale of the Land,

the Improvements, the Fixtures, the Personalty or any other part of the

Mortgaged Property entered into by Borrower now or in the future,

including cash or securities deposited to secure performance by parties

of their obligations;

i) All proceeds from the conversion, voluntary or involuntary, of any of

the items described in subsections (a) through (h) inclusive into cash or

liquidated claims, and the right to collect such proceeds;

j) All Rents and Leases;

k) All earnings, royalties, accounts receivable, issues and profits from

the Land, the Improvements or any other part of the Mortgaged

Property, and all undisbursed proceeds of the loan secured by this

Instrument;

1) All deposits to a Reserve Fund, whether in cash or as a letter of credit;

m) All refunds or rebates of Taxes by a Governmental Authority (other

than refunds applicable to periods before the real property tax year in

which this Instrument is dated) or Insurance premiums by an insurance

company;

n) All tenant security deposits which have not been forfeited by any

tenant under any Lease and any bond or other security in lieu of such

deposits; and

o) All names under or by which any of the above Mortgaged Property

may be operated or known, and all trademarks, trade names, and

goodwill relating to any of the Mortgaged Property[.]

(Id. 8).

Plaintiff attached the Loan Documents concerning the Property as Exhibits A

through E to the Verified Complaint. (Doc. 1-3—Doc. 1-7). The Loan Documents

consist of the Note, the Loan Agreement, the Omnibus Assignment, the Mortgage,

the Assignments, the Financing Statements, and all other documents executed or

delivered in connection with the Loan, each as amended, modified, or restated from

time to time.” (Doc. 1 4 16; Doc. 1-8—Doc. 1-7).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant defaulted on its obligations under the Loan

Documents by failing to make the fixed monthly principal and interest payments due

for February 1, 2025, and each month thereafter. (Doc. 1 □□ 17). Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant’s failure to pay as owed under the Loan Documents constituted “Events of

Default” under the Loan Documents (the “Payment Default”). Plaintiff alleges that

under the Loan Documents, if an Event of Default occurs and is continuing, Plaintiff

may accelerate all amounts owed under the Loan Documents to be immediately due

and payable, without any prior notice. (/d. { 18).

On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of its Payment

Default in a “Notice of Default, Acceleration and Demand for Payment” (the “Demand

Letter”). Ud. { 19). The Demand Letter notified Defendant that all amounts owed

under the Loan Documents were accelerated and must be immediately paid in full.

(d.). Plaintiff provided the Demand Letter as Exhibit F to the Verified Complaint.

(Doc. 1-8). To date, however, Defendant has allegedly failed to pay all amounts owed

to Plaintiff. (Doc. 1 § 19).

On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, asserting two causes of

action against Defendant: (1) breach of contract (Count One); and (2) request for

appointment of a receiver (Count Two). (Doc. 1 at 8-12). The Magistrate Judge

2 Plaintiff describes the Loan Documents in detail in Paragraphs 9 through 16 of the Verified

Complaint. (Doc. 1 § 9-16).

previously granted Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint a Receiver and appointed

Trigild Property Management LLC, as receiver of the Property. (Doc. 20).

Plaintiff alleges diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1 { 3).

Plaintiff alleges that complete diversity exists because it is a citizen of Massachusetts

and Defendant is a citizen of Louisiana. (Id. § 4—5). Plaintiff further alleges that the

amount in controversy is met because the principal amount owed under the Loan

Documents is $1,675,000.00, far greater than $75,000. Ud. § 3).

The record reflects that on October 15, 2025, Defendant was served a

Summons via personal service on its registered agent for service of process. (Doc. 9).

The Summons stated that Defendant must answer the Verified Complaint or file a

Motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 within 21 days of service of the

Summons. (/d. at 1). The Summons further emphasized: “If you fail to respond,

judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the

complaint.” (Id.). Despite personal service of the Summons over nine months ago,

Defendant has failed to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Verified Complaint

in any way, as required.

On November 11, 2025, Plaintiff moved for a Clerk’s Entry of Default.

(Doc. 11). The Clerk of Court granted the Clerk’s Entry of Default against Defendant.

(Doc. 12).

Now, Defendant moves the Court for the entry of a default judgment. (Doc. 13).

Despite the Demand Letter, the initiation of this lawsuit, the issuance of a Clerk’s

Entry of Default Judgment, and Plaintiffs filing of the current Motion for Default

Judgment, Defendant has failed to appear or respond to this lawsuit in any manner.

Accordingly, and for the reasons described below, the Court finds that default

judgment is warranted in Plaintiffs favor.

Il LEGAL STANDARD

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has adopted a three-

step process to obtain a default judgment. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown,

84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996). First, a default occurs when a party “has failed to

plead or otherwise defend” against an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Next, an entry of

default must be entered by the clerk when the default is shown “by affidavit or

otherwise.” See id.; New York Life, 84 F.3d at 141. Third, a party may apply to the

court for a default judgment after an entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b);

New York Life, 84 F.3d at 141.

After a party files for a default judgment, courts must apply a two-part process

to determine whether a default judgment should be entered. First, a court must

consider whether the entry of default judgment is appropriate under the

circumstances. Lindsey uv. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). Several

factors are relevant to this inquiry, including: (1) whether there are material issues

of fact at issue, (2) whether there has been substantial prejudice, (8) whether the

grounds for default have been clearly established, (4) whether the default was caused

by excusable neglect or good faith mistake, (5) the harshness of the default judgment,

and (6) whether the court would think itself obliged to set aside the default on a

motion by Defendant. Id.

Second, the court must assess the merits of the plaintiffs claims and determine

whether the plaintiff has a claim for relief. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Natl

Bank, 515 F. 2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975); Hamdan v. Tiger Bros. Food Mart, Inc.,

No. CV 15-00412, 2016 WL 1192679, at *2 (M.D. La. Mar. 22, 2016).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asks the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant.

(Doc. 13). For the following reasons, the Court finds that default judgment is

warranted.

A. Default Judgment is Appropriate under the Lindsey Factors.

The Court must first decide whether the entry of default judgment is

appropriate under the circumstances by considering the Lindsey factors. First, there

are no material facts in dispute because Defendant failed to file an Answer or motion

under Rule 12. Second, there is no substantial prejudice to Defendant because it has

had ample opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs Demand Letter, the Verified

Complaint, the Clerk’s Entry of Default, and Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment.

Third, the grounds for granting a default judgment against Defendant are clearly

established, as evidenced by the procedural history of this case and the Clerk’s Entry

of Default. Fourth, the Court has no basis to find that Defendant’s failure to respond

was the result of a good faith mistake or excusable neglect because it has failed to

respond to Plaintiff or to the Court. Fifth, Defendant’s failure to file any responsive

pleading or motion mitigates the harshness of a default judgment. Finally, the Court

is not aware of any facts that would lead it to set aside the default judgment if

challenged by Defendant. The Court therefore finds that the six Lindsey factors weigh

in favor of entry of default against Defendant.

B. The Sufficiency of the Pleadings.

Next, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs pleadings provide a

sufficient basis for a default judgement. Here, Plaintiff sued Defendant for repayment

of the Loan under the terms of the Loan Documents. (Doc. 1). The parties executed a

valid and binding contract—namely, the Loan Documents. (Doc. 1-8—Doc. 1-7). Along

with Plaintiffs Verified Complaint, Plaintiff filed the Loan Documents into the

record. (Doc. 1-8—Doc. 1-7).

Defendant breached the Loan Documents by failing to pay Plaintiff under its

terms. (Doc. 1 § 7). Along with the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 18), Plaintiff

filed the Affidavit of Brett Huff, custodian of business records of KeyBank Real Estate

Capital.’ (Doc. 18-2 at 1). Huff attests to the following:

I have read the Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”) and have

examined the documents attached as Exhibits thereto, and that, based

upon my personal knowledge of the facts stated therein and upon my

review of the records of KeyBank, that were kept as a regular practice

and in the course of KeyBank’s regularly conducted business activity

and that were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters

set forth, the facts stated in the Motion, are true and correct to the best

of my knowledge, information, and belief, and the documents attached

as Exhibits are accurate copies of the business records of the regularly

conducted activity of KeyBank.

Ud. at 1-2). Huff further attests that Defendant “failed to make monthly payments

required under the Loan Documents described in the Motion, and as of

3 Huff signed the Affidavit “not in his individual or personal capacity, but solely in his

capacity as Real Estate Analyst—Special Servicing for KeyBank Real Estate Capitall,]”

“acting solely in its capacity as Special Servicer for[] [P]laintiff.” (Doc. 13-2).

November 26, 2025, [Defendant] owes Plaintiff $ 1,953,168.58.” (Ud. at 2). Plaintiff

suffered damages due to Defendant’s failure to pay. (Doc. 1). Thus, Plaintiff has

demonstrated a sufficient basis for default on its Complaint.

C. Damages.

A defaulting defendant “concedes the truth of the allegations of the Complaint

concerning defendant’s liability, but not damages.” Ins. Co. of the W.v.

H & G Contractors, Inc., 2011 WL 4738197, *4 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 5, 2011). A court’s

award of damages in a default judgment must be determined after a hearing, unless

the amount claimed can be demonstrated “by detailed affidavits establishing the

necessary facts.” United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979).

If a court can mathematically calculate the amount of damages based on the

pleadings and supporting documents, a hearing is unnecessary.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Alima, No. 3:13-CV-0889-B, 2014 WL 1632158, at *3

(N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2014) (citing James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993)).

A review of the record reflects that the elements of damages are

mathematically calculable based on the supporting documentation submitted; thus,

a hearing is not necessary. (Doc. 1-3—Doc. 1-7). The Loan Documents reflect that

Defendant borrowed $1,675,000.00. (d.). The Motion alleges that as of

November 26, 2025, Defendant owed Plaintiff the following amounts under the Loan

Documents:

Payments

Payment): 07/2025

11/26/25

Huffs Affidavit similarly attests that as of November 26, 2025, Defendant owes

Plaintiff $ 1,953,168.58.” (Doc. 18-2 at 2).

Accordingly, in the absence of anything to the contrary from Defendant, the

Court will enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, as described

in detail below.

10

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion For Default Judgment (Doc. 13)

is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that default judgment is hereby entered in

favor of Plaintiff Computershare Trust Company, National Association, not in its

individual capacity, but solely as trustee for the Registered Holders of

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Multifamily Mortgage

Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2022-SB102, and against Defendant Tiger

Gardens, LLC.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Tiger Gardens, LLC is liable to

Plaintiff for all amounts owed under the Loan Documents described in the Motion,

including $1,953,168.58 as of November 26, 2025, plus all additional interest and

fees accruing through the date of entry of this Ruling and Order, plus all additional

costs, expenses, charges, and amounts advanced by Plaintiff to protect its collateral.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs right to pursue all other

endorsers, guarantors, indemnitors, sureties or persons liable for the amounts and

obligations owed under the Loan Documents, and Plaintiffs rights in any and all

other assets, collateral, property or security of any kind or type, are hereby reserved.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the

above-captioned matter be and is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

11

ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may seek attorney’s fees after the

entry of Final Judgment.‘

Judgment shall be issued separately.

Li

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of July, 2026

JUDGE BRIAN A. J. SON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4 Plaintiff filed a Proposed Order to accompany its Motion for Default Judgment, which

included detailed language related to the appointment of a receiver. Because the

Magistrate Judge previously appointed a receiver (Doc. 20), the Court considers Plaintiffs

request for the appointment of a receiver moot. Should Plaintiff disagree with the Court’s

assessment, Plaintiff should file the appropriate Motion.

12