MVM Custom Homes, Inc. et al v. Krass et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 33 Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Judgment upon Default against Defendants Gregori Krass and Polena Krass. a. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Gregori Krass and Pol ena Krass for $57,890.76 with post judgment interest accruing from the date judgment is entered at the rate established by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.b. Plaintiffs may file a Bill of Costs or otherwise move for costs on or before July 26, 2017 per Mi ddle District of Florida Local Rule 4.18. Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendant Reliance Project Management, LLC 34 is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Reliance Project Management, LLC from this case. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close the file.. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/13/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MVM CUSTOM HOMES, INC. and
MIKHAIL V. MARGITICH,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-768-FtM-38MRM

GREGORI KRASS, POLENA
KRASS and RELIANCE PROJECT
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER 1
Before the Court are the following ripe matters:
•

•

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Reliance Project Management, LLC
(Doc. 34); and

•

1

Joint Notice of Settlement Between Plaintiffs MVM Custom Homes, Inc. and
Mikhail Margitich and Defendant Reliance Project Management, LLC (Doc.
32);

Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Judgment upon Default against Defendants
Gregori Krass and Polena Krass (Doc. 33).

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the Court.

For the following reasons, the Court grants default judgment against the Krasses and
dismisses Reliance from this suit.
BACKGROUND
This is a one-count copyright infringement action involving a home design. (Doc.
1). MVM is a residential building company ownded by Margitich. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 9-10).
Margitich creates and copyrights architectural designs that MVM markets to prospective
customers. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 10-14). The Krasses hired Margitich and MVM to construct the
Citrine Model home on property owned by Polena Krass. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 15-16). After
visiting with engineers and picking up the proposed construction plans, the Krasses
dismissed MVM from the project. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 18). They then hired Reliance. As the new
builder, Reliance had the plans. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 21). This prompted Margitich and MVM to
sue for copyright infringement, alleging joint and several liability against the Krasses and
Reliance.
Only Reliance answered this action. (Doc. 8). The Krasses’ non-responsiveness
resulted in a Clerk’s Entry of Default against them. (Doc. 22). Since then, Plaintiffs and
Reliance settled this case at mediation. (Doc. 32; Doc. 34). Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
their case against Reliance.

(Doc. 34).

In exchange, Reliance acknowledged the

copyright in dispute and agreed to final judgment against the Krasses. (Doc. 32; Doc.
34). Thus, to conclude this case, Plaintiffs have now moved for default judgment against
the Krasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and moved to dismiss
Reliance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
Against this backdrop, the Court will address each motion in turn.

2

A. Motion for default judgment against the Krasses
Rule 55(b)(2) permits a party to move the court for a default judgment. When
entering a default judgment, a court must ensure that the allegations are well-pleaded
and the pleadings have a “substantive, sufficient basis” for the desired relief. Tyco Fire
& Sec., LLC v. Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2007). This means the pleading
must be able to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Singleton v.
Dean, 611 F. App’x 671, 671 (11th Cir. 2015). The court looks to whether the complaint
has “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Id. If a default judgment is warranted, the court may hold a hearing to decide
damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). But the rule does not mandate a hearing; the
court may use its discretion. See Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449 F.
App’x 908, 911 (11th Cir. 2011).
As stated, Plaintiffs move for a default judgment against the Krasses for copyright
infringement. (Doc. 33 at 2). To establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement,
Plaintiffs must show (1) Margitich was the owner of a valid copyright, and (2) the Krasses
copied his copyrighted material. See Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499
U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys R Us, Inc., 611 F.3d 1308, 1315 (11th
Cir. 2010).

To satisfy the first element, Plaintiffs have provided Margitich’s sworn

statement (Doc. 27-1), the Registration Certificates (Doc. 27-2), and the sworn
declaration of the draftsman who rendered the plans (Doc. 27-3). To satisfy the second
element, they allege that the Krasses copied and distributed Margitich’s copyrighted
works for their own benefit and ignored requests to cease unauthorized use. (Doc. 27 at

3

6; Doc. 1 at ¶ 19). Accepting these facts as true, the Complaint has stated a plausible
claim for copyright infringement.
For the default judgment, Plaintiffs request $57,890.76 in damages with post
judgment interest. According to Margitich’s Declaration, the amount represents the lost
sale of the home (the difference between the net profits from building the Citrine Model
and the construction costs). (Doc. 27-1). Because the requested damages are wellrepresented, the Court need not hold a hearing to establish damages. In addition,
Plaintiffs request costs totaling $595.00 for the filing fee and service of process. (Doc.
33). But the Court considers costs after judgment is entered. See M.D. Fla. R. 4.18.
Thus, at this time, the Court will not grant costs.
Accordingly, the Court will enter a default judgment against the Krasses for
$57,890.76 plus post judgment interest.
B. Motion to dismiss Reliance
Next, Plaintiffs move to dismiss Reliance under Rule 41(a)(2). A court enjoys
“broad discretion” to grant a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal, and it should do so unless the
defendant will suffer “clear legal prejudice.” Pontenberg v. Boston Sci. Corp., 252 F.3d
1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, the Court finds good cause to dismiss this case
against Reliance because it has acknowledged the copyright in dispute and agrees to a
final judgment against the Krasses. (Doc. 32; Doc. 34).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Judgment upon Default against Defendants
Gregori Krass and Polena Krass (Doc. 33) is GRANTED.

4

a. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter default judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and against Gregori Krass and Polena Krass for $57,890.76
with post judgment interest accruing from the date judgment is entered
at the rate established by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
b. Plaintiffs may file a Bill of Costs or otherwise move for costs on or before
July 26, 2017 per Middle District of Florida Local Rule 4.18.
(2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Reliance Project Management, LLC
(Doc. 34) is GRANTED.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate

Defendant Reliance Project Management, LLC from this case.
(3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and
deadlines and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 12th day of July, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

5