Hudson Insurance Company v. Simmons Construction LLC et al
Filing
68
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 65 .) FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, Simmons ConstructionLLC, SKS Investme nts & Developments LLC, Todd G. Simmons Revocable Trust, and Todd G. Simmons and Jane Doe Simmons, individually and as husband and wife, in the amount of $4,516,191.18, which shall earn post-judgment interest at the applicable federal rate from the date of entry of judgment until paid in full. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate this case. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 5/5/2014.(KMG)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Hudson Insurance Co.,
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
Simmons Construction, LLC, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-12-407-PHX-SMM
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND ORDER
15
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Hudson Insurance Company’s (“Hudson”)
16
motion for summary judgment, supported by its statement of facts and accompanying
17
exhibits. (Docs. 65, 66.) There is no response. The Court will exercise its discretion, grant
18
Hudson’s motion, and order judgment.
19
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20
Hudson filed this action seeking the deposit of collateral security and an award of
21
indemnity from Defendants pursuant to the terms of a written General Indemnity Agreement
22
(“GIA”). The GIA was issued as partial consideration for, and as a precondition to Hudson’s
23
issuance of surety bonds on behalf of Defendants. (Doc. 37.) Hudson issued five bonds
24
relating to five different construction projects that were being undertaken by Defendants.
25
(Id.) Subsequently, Hudson began to receive claims on the bonds. (Id.) Pursuant to the
26
“Indemnity to Surety” provision of the GIA, Defendants agreed to indemnify Hudson against
27
all loss, costs and expenses of whatsoever kind of nature, and to pay to Hudson, upon
28
demand, a sufficient amount to protect Hudson against any potential loss, cost or expenses.
1
(Doc. 66-1 at 8-16.) As a result of the claims, lawsuits, and associated legal expenses,
2
Hudson anticipated a loss of $3,900,000, and set aside a loss reserve for that amount. (Doc.
3
37.)
4
In this action, Hudson first moved for partial summary judgment requesting an order
5
of specific performance that would require Defendants to provide it with $3,900,000 in
6
collateral security to cover Hudson’s exposure under the bonds. (Doc. 26.) The Court
7
granted Hudson’s motion. (Doc. 37.) However, Defendants failed to deposit any collateral
8
with Hudson.
9
Hudson now moves for summary judgment. (Docs. 65, 66.) In a sworn itemized
10
statement, Hudson submits that its losses and expenses now total $4,516,191.18. (Doc. 66-1
11
at 2-6, 18-38.) Under the GIA, Defendants agreed that “[a]n itemized statement of loss and
12
expense incurred by Surety, sworn by an officer of the Surety, shall be prima facie evidence
13
of the fact and extent of the liability of [Defendants] to Surety in any claim or suit by Surety
14
against [Defendants].” (Doc. 66-1 at 9.)
15
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
16
Initially, each of the Defendants was represented by counsel. However, subsequently,
17
the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by Defendants’ attorney. (Doc. 52.) The Court
18
further directed Simmons Construction, SKS Investments, and the Simmons Trust (the
19
“Entity Defendants”) to retain new counsel. (Id.) The Entity Defendants did not retain new
20
counsel and Hudson moved to strike the answer of the Entity Defendants. (Doc. 63.) The
21
Court held a status hearing and issued a Minute Entry. (Doc. 64.) The Court granted
22
Hudson’s motion to strike as to Entity Defendants Simmons Construction and SKS
23
Investments, but withheld a ruling to the Simmons Trust in abeyance, allowing it additional
24
time to retain counsel. (Id.) The Simmons Trust did not retain new counsel and the extended
25
deadline to do so expired. The Court then granted Hudson’s motion to strike the answer of
26
the Simmons Trust. (Doc. 67.)
27
28
DISCUSSION
A federal court sitting in diversity applies state substantive law. See Hambleton Bros.
-2-
1
Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, this Court
2
applies Arizona law to the interpretation of the contract at issue. See Benevides v. Arizona
3
Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 184 Ariz. 610, 613, 911 P.2d 616, 619 (App. 1995). The
4
Entity Defendants are unrepresented, are in default, and do not have the capacity to respond
5
to Hudson’s motion. See United States v. High Country Broadcasting Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245
6
(9th Cir. 1993) (artificial entities may only appear in federal court through licensed counsel);
7
In re Shattuck, 411 B.R. 378 (10th Cir. 2009) (the rule barring artificial entities from
8
appearing in federal court except through licensed counsel applies equally to trusts). Todd
9
Simmons, appearing individually and proceeding pro se, has failed to respond to Hudson’s
10
motion.
11
The Local Civil Rules for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
12
Rule 7.2(i), provide that a party’s failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment may,
13
in the Court’s discretion, be deemed a consent to the Court’s granting of judgment in favor
14
of the movant. On more than one occasion, the Court warned Mr. Simmons about his
15
responsibilities in proceeding pro se and its consequences if he failed to respond. When the
16
Court has warned the non-moving party that their failure to respond shall constitute a consent
17
to the granting of the motion, the Court may properly exercise its discretion to grant the
18
motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the non-moving party’s construed consent.
19
See Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652 (9th Cir. 1994) (further quotation and citation
20
omitted).
21
Hudson has amply demonstrated that it is entitled to summary judgment for breach
22
of the express indemnity contract entered into between the parties. An express indemnity
23
agreement executed between a surety and its indemnitors is to be strictly enforced. See
24
Commercial Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Pacficic-Peru Constr. Corp., 558 F.2d 948, 953 (9th
25
Cir. 1977); see also J.D. Halstead Lumber Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity, 38 Ariz.
26
228, 237, 298 P. 925, 928 (1931). As noted above, the terms of the GIA are quite extensive
27
and require the Defendants, jointly and severally, to indemnify and hold harmless Hudson
28
against “All loss, costs and expenses of whatsoever kind of nature” arising out of Hudson’s
-3-
1
issuance of the Bonds on behalf of the Defendants. (Doc. 66-1 at 8-9.) As a result of
2
Simmons’ Construction’s default on the bonded projects and failure to pay its subcontractors
3
and suppliers, Hudson incurred substantial losses by virtue of having issued the Bonds.
4
(Doc. 37.) The Court further finds that Hudson has complied with the requirement to provide
5
a sworn itemized statement of loss and expense. Such itemization show the loss to be in the
6
amount of $4,516,191.18. (Doc. 66-1 at 2-6, 18-38.) Hudson is entitled to judgment for this
7
amount.
8
In diversity actions, post-judgment interest is governed by federal law. 28 U.S.C. §
9
1961; Citicorp Real Estate v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1097, 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). Under section
10
1961, post-judgment interest is calculated from the date of entry of judgment “at a rate equal
11
to the weekly average 1–year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board
12
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding.” 28 U.S.C.
13
§ 1961(a).
14
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing,
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
16
(Doc. 65.)
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
18
in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, Simmons Construction
19
LLC, SKS Investments & Developments LLC, Todd G. Simmons Revocable Trust, and Todd
20
G. Simmons and Jane Doe Simmons, individually and as husband and wife, in the amount
21
of $4,516,191.18, which shall earn post-judgment interest at the applicable federal rate from
22
the date of entry of judgment until paid in full. The Clerk of Court is further directed to
23
terminate this case.
24
DATED this 5th day of May, 2014.
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?