Mora v. Martinez-Clark

Filing 41

ORDER denying 38 Motion for Default Judgment; adopting in part 39 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation 40 is OVERRULED. The 16 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate any pending deadlines and close the file. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 6/16/2018. (JRJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

MONICA MORA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-707-Orl-40GJK

JULIO MARTINEZ-CLARK,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court without oral argument on the following:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Julio Martinez Clark (Doc. 38 (“Motion”)), filed February 20, 2018;
2. United

States

Magistrate

Judge

Gregory

J.

Kelly’s

Report

and

Recommendation (Doc. 39), submitted April 27, 2018; and
3. Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report & Recommendation
(Doc. 40), filed May 16, 2018.
With briefing complete, the matter is now ripe. Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Default Judgment is due to be denied, and this case dismissed.
I.

BACKGROUND 1
Pro se Plaintiff Monica Mora initiated this action on April 26, 2016, against

Defendant Julio Martinez-Clark. (Doc. 1 (“Initial Complaint”)). The Initial Complaint
detailed a loan agreement entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant, wherein Plaintiff’s

1

For a more thorough recitation of the background facts of this case, see Magistrate
Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 40).

property served as collateral. (Id. ¶¶ 5–6, 15). The parties later sought to remove the
encumbrance, sending notices of loan rescission (“Notices”) to Fremont Investment and
Loan, the “named payee.” (Id. ¶ 11; Doc. 1-1). Plaintiff and Defendant are now dividing
marital property, and Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment stating that (1) the Notices
rescinded the loan pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and
(2) Fremont’s failure to respond voided any encumbrances associated with the loan. (Doc.
1, ¶¶ 5–6).
A clerk’s default was entered against Defendant on June 1, 2016. (Doc. 9).
Plaintiff’s subsequent motion for entry of default judgment against Defendant (Doc. 10)
was denied, however, because the Initial Complaint failed to allege a controvers y
between Plaintiff and Defendant (and for failure to name an indispensable party). (Doc.
13). The Initial Complaint was thus dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 15). On February
7, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16). 2
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on February 28, 2018, seeking a default judgment
against Defendant. (Doc. 38). Plaintiff neglected to file an affidavit of service or submit
other evidence showing that Defendant was served with the Amended Complaint.
Magistrate Judge Kelly’s well-reasoned R&R recommended the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice for Plaintiff’s repeated failure to allege an
actual controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Doc. 39, pp. 5–6). 3 Plaintiff objected

2

The Amended Complaint named U.S. Bank, National Association (“U.S. Bank”) as a
Defendant; however, U.S. Bank was subsequently dismissed from the action on
August 9, 2017. (Id.; Doc. 29).

3

The R&R further advances Plaintiff’s apparent failure to serve Defendant with the
Amended Complaint as grounds for denying Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.
(Doc. 39, p. 5).

2

to the R&R, generally averring that the Amended Complaint adequately alleges a
justiciable controversy. (Doc. 40).
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, the district court must “make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The district court
must consider the record and factual issues independent of the magistrate judge’s report,
as de novo review is essential to the constitutionality of § 636. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of
Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R is due to be overruled. As the Magistrate correctly

noted, “a declaratory judgment may be issued only in the case of an actual controversy.”
(Doc. 39 (quoting Bele v. 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1296
(M.D. Fla. 2015))). To establish an actual controversy, the facts alleged must “show that
there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of
sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Md.
Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941). Moreover, the Court is without
jurisdiction over cases lacking an actual controversy, and, in such cases, must dismiss.4

4

The standing doctrine serves to ensure the authority of the federal courts extends only
to “cases” and “controversies,” as mandated by Article III of the United States
Constitution. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “Standing is jurisdictional,” therefore, it functions
as a threshold question any party invoking federal jurisdiction must satisfy before the
court may hear the case. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975); see also Odyssey
Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified, Shipwrecked Vessel, Case No. 8:06–cv–
1685–T–23MAP, 2012 WL 3541988, at *3 n.3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2012).

3

Here, the facts alleged show a unity of interest between Plaintiff and Defendant, in that
both parties seek rescission of an encumbrance against Plaintiff’s property in furtheranc e
of the parties’ marital property division. (Doc. 16, ¶¶ 9–16). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed
to allege an actual controversy, and the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
The R&R further recommends that the Court not grant leave to amend, as further
amendment would be futile. Plaintiff did not object to this portion of the R&R. Regardless,
the Court concurs with this recommendation as well. Plaintiff has received leave to amend
once already in this case, 5 and the Amended Complaint suffers the same defect as the
Initial Complaint. For the reasons articulated in the R&R (see Doc. 39, p. 6), the Court
declines to grant leave to amend. See Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1014 (11th
Cir. 2005) (stating a district court need not allow amendment where amendment would
be futile).
Although the R&R proffered Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendant with the Amended
Complaint as an additional reason for denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, the
Court need not address that issue because of the absence of an actual controversy. (Doc.
39, p. 5).
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

5

The R&R correctly points out that Plaintiff has also litigated two other cases premised
on the same facts. Both suits were dismissed for similar reasons (one for want of a
case or controversy, another for want of subject matter jurisdiction). (Doc. 39; Mora v.
Martinez-Clark, Case No. 6:16-cv-526-PGB-DAB (M.D. Fla. 2016); U.S. Bank, N.A. v.
Martinez-Clark, Case No. 6:16-cv-717-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla. 2016)).

4

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Julio Martinez Clark (Doc. 38) is DENIED.
2. United

States

Magistrate

Judge

Gregory

J.

Kelly’s

Report

and

Recommendation (Doc. 39) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED in part as
described above.
3. Plaintiff’s

Objection

to

the

Magistrate

Judge

Kelly’s

Report

&

Recommendation (Doc. 40) is OVERRULED.
4. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of
Court is directed to terminate any pending deadlines and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 16, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

5