Advantus Corp. v. T2 International, LLC et al
ORDER adopting 137 Report and Recommendation; granting 120 Consent Motion for Approval of Stipulation and Entry of Judgment of Garnishment. On or before November 4, 2016, Advantus shall file a notice indicating whether it continues to request the reinstitution of contempt proceedings in light of the Judgment of Garnishment. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/18/2016. (JW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ADVANTUS, CORP., et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-240-J-34MCR
T2 INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Case No. 3:14-cv-484-J-34MCR
T2 INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
COMFORT RESEARCH, LLC,
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 137;
Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge,
on July 28, 2016.1 In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that the
Unless the Court indicates otherwise, document numbers refer to the docket in the later-filed case,
Advantus, Corp. v. T2 International, LLC, et al. (Advantus II), 3:14-cv-484-J-34MCR. Citations to documents
in the earlier-filed case, Advantus, Corp. v. T2 International, LLC, 3:13-cv-240-J-34MCR, will include a notation
to Advantus I.
Consent Motion for Approval of Stipulation and Entry of Judgment of Garnishment (Doc.
120) be granted. See Report at 2, 6. No party has filed objections to the Report, and the
time for doing so has now passed.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific
objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo
review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions
de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May
14, 2007). Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions
recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court will approve the proposed
Consent Final Judgment of Garnishment as to Comfort Research, LLC (Doc. 135-1;
Judgment of Garnishment) and enter it as the judgment of this Court.
However, prior to entry of the Judgment of Garnishment, the Court must also
consider Advantus, Corp.’s request for a renewal of the contempt proceedings against T2
International, LLC, T2 Products, LLC, and Todd Youngblood. See Plaintiff Advantus,
Corp.’s Notice of Defendants’ Breach of Settlement Agreement and Notice of Renewal of
Motion for T2 and Todd Youngblood to be Held in Contempt (Advantus I, Doc. 122; Notice
of Breach). In the Notice of Breach, Advantus, Corp. (Advantus) asserts that Defendants
T2 International, LLC and T2 Products, LLC (collectively, T2) breached their settlement
agreement with Advantus, and as such, Advantus requests that the Court reinstate the
contempt proceedings it had previously held in abeyance.2 See generally Notice of Breach;
Order (Advantus I, Doc. 110) (directing T2 and Youngblood to show cause why they should
not be held in civil contempt); Order (Advantus I, Doc. 112) (holding contempt proceedings
in abeyance). On April 21, 2016, T2 and Youngblood filed a response to the Notice of
Breach in which they assert that T2 has cured the alleged breaches, and cooperated with
Advantus in resolving the matter. See Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Breach
of Settlement Agreement and Notice of Renewal of Motion for T2 and Todd Youngblood to
be Held in Contempt (Advantus I, Doc. 132; Response). Specifically, T2 maintains that
Advantus will now receive the payments required under the settlement agreement from a
third-party garnishee, resulting in satisfaction of the Judgment one year earlier than provided
for in the settlement agreement. See Response at 4. As such, T2 requests that the Court
continue to hold the contempt proceedings in abeyance until full payment of the Judgment.
Id. at 8. In light of these developments, it is unclear whether Advantus still maintains that
contempt proceedings are warranted. Accordingly, prior to entry of the Judgment of
Garnishment, the Court will direct Advantus to file a notice addressing whether it continues
to seek the reinstitution of contempt proceedings. In light of the foregoing, it is
Prior to the garnishment proceedings addressed in the Report, the parties had entered a settlement
agreement resolving Advantus II. See Stipulation and Consent to Entry of Final Judgment (Doc. 77), filed
October 30, 2015. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Court entered a stipulated final judgment, see
Judgment (Doc. 79), and agreed to hold in abeyance the contempt proceedings pending in Advantus I until
satisfaction of the Judgment.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 137) is ADOPTED
as the opinion of the Court.
The Consent Motion for Approval of Stipulation and Entry of Judgment of
Garnishment (Doc. 120) is GRANTED.
The proposed resolution is APPROVED.
The proposed Consent Final Judgment of Garnishment as to Comfort
Research, LLC (Doc. 135-1) is approved. The Court will defer entry of judgment until
resolution of the matters raised in the Notice of Breach.
On or before November 4, 2016, Advantus shall file a notice indicating
whether it continues to request the reinstitution of contempt proceedings in light of the
Judgment of Garnishment.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 18th day of October, 2016.
Counsel of Record
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?