Allegheny Casualty Company v. United Construction Company of Central Florida, Inc. et al
Filing
39
ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Allegheny's Renewed Motion for Default Final Judgment 36 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Renewed Motion is GRANTED as to Counts I, II, and V, and DE NIED as to Counts III, IV and VII. Plaintiff is awarded damages against Defendants in the amount of $1,855,261.66, attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,080.00, and costs in the amount of $1,249.29, for a total award of $1,86 6,590.95. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff Allegheny Casualty Company and against Defendant United Construction Company of Central Florida, Inc. on Counts I, II, and V, and against Defendants Barry W. Clarambe au, Rhonda Clarambeau and Heather Glen Enterprises, LLC on Counts I and II, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,866,590.95; The Court hereby ENJOINS and ORDERS Defendants, jointly and severally, to post $681,464.55 in collateral by M arch 3, 2014; The Court DECLINES to reserve jurisdiction over this action to amend the judgment; The Court does not find that Allegheny has the right to pursue additional or supplemental suits to recover damages not awarded herein; and The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close this file. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 2/3/2014. (BGS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
ALLEGHENY CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:12-cv-01363-CEH-KRS
UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC.,
BARRY W. CLARAMBEAU, RHONDA
CLARAMBEAU and HEATHER GLEN
ENTERPRISES, LLC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding, filed on December 20, 2013. Doc. 38. In the Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part
Plaintiff Allegheny Casualty Company’s (“Allegheny”) Renewed Motion for Default Final
Judgment (“Renewed Motion”) (Doc. 36) against Defendants United Construction Company of
Central Florida, Inc. (“United”), Barry W. Clarambeau (“B. Clarambeau”), Rhonda Clarambeau
(“R. Clarambeau”) and Heather Glen Enterprises, LLC (“HGE”), (collectively “Defendants”). No
objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed and the time to do so has expired.
As such, this matter is ripe for review.
I.
BACKGROUND
On September 7, 2012, Allegheny filed suit against Defendants based on diversity
jurisdiction and asserted state law causes of action arising from the alleged breach of an indemnity
agreement. Doc. 1 (“Complaint”). Specifically, the Complaint contains six Counts: Count I -
Specific Performance/Injunctive Relief and Demand for Posting of Collateral against all
Defendants; Count II - Contractual Exoneration against all Defendants; Count III - Common Law
Exoneration against United; Count IV - Breach of Contract: Damages/Demand for Indemnification
against all Defendants; Count V - Common Law Indemnification against United; and Count VII Quia Timet against all Defendants. 1 Id.
Allegheny served the complaint on each Defendant, but no Defendant answered or
otherwise responded. Doc. Nos. 7-11. Accordingly, at Allegheny’s request (Doc. Nos. 12, 13,
15), the Clerk of Court entered a default against each Defendant (Doc. 14, 16). Allegheny then
filed a Motion for Default Final Judgment against Defendants. Doc. 17. This motion was denied
without prejudice (Doc. 26), as Allegheny filed an Amended Complaint on February 6, 2013 to
correct the jurisdictional deficiencies noted by the Court (Doc. 23).
On April 2, 2013, the Court found that the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged
diversity jurisdiction. See Doc. 25. Allegheny served the Amended Complaint on Defendants but,
again, none of the Defendants appeared or otherwise responded. Doc. 23 at 19-20. The Clerk of
Court entered new defaults against each Defendant (Doc. 28) at Allegheny’s request (Doc. 20).
On May 23, 2013, Allegheny filed its first Renewed Motion for Default Final Judgment
against Defendants, to which there was no response. Doc. 29. The motion was again denied
without prejudice on August 1, 2013 because the Magistrate Judge found it insufficient to allow
her to determine whether the requested relief should be granted. Doc. 30. Thereafter, on
1
The Quia Timet claim is labeled Count VII. There is no Count VI in either the original or
amended complaint (Doc. 23).
2
September 9, 2013, Allegheny filed its second Renewed Motion, as referenced above. Doc. 36.
Again, there was no response.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district judge may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with further instructions.
Id. The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See
Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
III.
ANALYSIS
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendants are liable for specific
performance of the collateral security provision of the Indemnity Agreement under Count I of the
Amended Complaint. Doc. 38 at 10. Allegheny has shown: “1) [it] is clearly entitled to it, 2) there
is no adequate remedy at law, and 3) . . . that justice requires it.” Id. at 9 (citing Travelers Cas. &
Sur. Co. of Am. v. Indus. Commercial Structures, Inc., 6:12-CV-1294-ORL-28, 2012 WL 4792906,
*2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2012) (citations omitted)). As the Magistrate Judge noted, by failing to
respond to the Amended Complaint, Defendants have effectively admitted facts which are
sufficient to show that Allegheny is entitled to relief under Count I of the Amended Complaint.
Doc. 38 at 9-10.
Similarly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendants have effectively
admitted facts that establish each element of Allegheny’s claim for Contractual Exoneration under
Count II and for Common Law Indemnification under Count V of the Amended Complaint. Id. at
10-13. Moreover, the Court agrees that Counts III and VII need not now be considered because
the relief sought under those claims is available under Allegheny’s Contractual Exoneration claim.
3
Id. at 11 n. 3. Under Count IV, the Court agrees that, because Allegheny failed to allege the fourth
element of this claim, Defendants cannot be found liable. Id. at 11-12.
For the above violations, Allegheny seeks a permanent injunction, money damages with
interest for its principal losses and loss adjustment expenses, and an award of attorneys’ fees and
costs. Doc. 23. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that an injunction
is appropriate which requires Defendants, jointly and severally, to post $681,464.55 in collateral
as required by the Indemnity Agreement within a time established by the Court. Doc. 38 at 14.
Furthermore, under the Contractual Exoneration claim, Allegheny may receive an award of
damages in the amount for which its liability has already matured. See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Gen.
Contractors & Const. Mgmt., Inc., 07-21489-CIV, 2008 WL 2245986, *5 (S.D. Fla. May 29,
2008). The Magistrate Judge has determined that amount to be $1,855,261.66, and the Court
agrees. Doc. 38 at 14-15. Defendants will, jointly and severally, pay this amount in damages,
along with post-judgment interest, to Allegheny. Additionally, finding the hourly rate and number
of hours worked to be reasonable, the Court adopts the attorneys’ fee hourly rate determined by
the Magistrate Judge for Attorneys Jeffrey Geller, Joyce Cruz Albert, Edward Etcheverry, and Guy
Harrison, as well as the number of hours worked, for a total of $10,080.00 in attorneys’ fees and
$1,249.29 in costs and expenses. Id. at 16-18.
Finally, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Court should not reserve
jurisdiction to amend the judgment and that Allegheny does not have the “right to pursue additional
or supplemental suits for damages not awarded herein.” Id. at 18-20.
IV.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, in
conjunction with an independent examination of the court file, the Court is of the opinion that the
4
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in
all respects.2
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 38) is adopted,
confirmed, and approved in all respects and is made a part of this Order for all
purposes, including appellate review.
2.
Plaintiff Allegheny’s Renewed Motion for Default Final Judgment (Doc. 36) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Renewed Motion is GRANTED
as to Counts I, II, and V, and DENIED as to Counts III, IV and VII.
3.
Plaintiff is awarded damages against Defendants in the amount of $1,855,261.66,
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,080.00, and costs in the amount of $1,249.29,
for a total award of $1,866,590.95.
4.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter a judgment in favor of Plaintiff
Allegheny Casualty Company and against Defendant United Construction
Company of Central Florida, Inc. on Counts I, II, and V, and against Defendants
Barry W. Clarambeau, Rhonda Clarambeau and Heather Glen Enterprises, LLC on
Counts I and II, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,866,590.95;
5.
The Court hereby ENJOINS and ORDERS Defendants, jointly and severally, to
post $681,464.55 in collateral by March 3, 2014;
6.
The Court DECLINES to reserve jurisdiction over this action to amend the
judgment;
2
The Court notes that on page 10 of the Report and Recommendation, the correct date reference
with respect to losses incurred by Allegheny is June 28, 2012, not June 28, 2010.
5
7.
The Court does not find that Allegheny has the right to pursue additional or
supplemental suits to recover damages not awarded herein; and
8.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and deadlines
and close this file.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 3, 2014.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
United States Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding
6
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?