BMO Harris Bank, NA v. DTL Transportation, Inc.
ORDER granting in part 26 Motion for Default Judgment; adopting 27 Report and Recommendations. See Order for Details. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 9/14/2017. (VMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
BMO HARRIS BANK, NA,
Case No. 6:16-cv-2238-Orl-37KRS
DTL TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Plaintiff BMO Harris Bank, NA (“BMO”) initiated this action by filing a five-count
Complaint against Defendant DTL Transportation, Inc. (“DTL”). (Doc. 1) Specifically,
Plaintiff requests: (1) injunctive relief (“Count I”); (2) specific performance (“Count II”);
(3) replevin (“Count III”); breach of a Master Vehicle and Lease Agreement and six
Schedule A’s (collectively, “Lease”) (“Count IV”); and (5) breach of a Loan and Security
Agreement (“LSA”) (“Count V”). (Id. at 7–12.) After obtaining the Clerk’s entry of default
(Doc. 18), BMO now requests default judgment against DTL, seeking injunctive relief,
replevin, and damages based on DTL’s breach (“Motion”). (Doc. 26, pp. 21–22.)
On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding recommends that the Court
grant the Motion in part and award BMO money damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees.
(Doc. 27 (“R&R”).) As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Spaulding notes that, despite
repeated invitations to do so, BMO did not specifically address the legal elements of
Counts I–III in its Motion, and, thus, has abandoned those claims (“Abandoned
Claims”). (Id. at 5 n.2.) Hence, she recommends that the Court not permit BMO another
opportunity to seek default judgment on the Abandoned Claims, and cabins her R&R to
only Counts IV–V. (Id. at 5.)
As to Counts IV–V, Magistrate Judge Spaulding concludes that: (1) by virtue of
DTL’s default, DTL entered into a valid Lease and LSA with GE TF Trust (BMO’s
predecessor-in-interest), obligating DTL to pay monthly rental for leased equipment; (2)
DTL breached the Lease and LSA by failing to make all outstanding payments; (3) BMO
may recover damages from the breach, which include the principal amount due and
owing, interest, and late charges; (4) BMO is entitled to immediate possession of the
vehicles that DTL retained under the MLA and Schedules (“Retained Units”) (see Doc.
26, p. 7); and (5) DTL is obligated to pay BMO’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
enforcing the MLA, Schedules, and LSA. (See id. at 5–8.)
The parties did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed.
As such, the Court has examined the R&R only for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan 28, 2016); see
also Marcort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding no clear error, the
Court finds that the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 27) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.
BMO Harris Bank, NA’s Second Renewed Motion for Default Judgment
(Doc. 26) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent specified in this Order.
DTL Transportation, Inc. is DIRECTED to produce the Retained Units to
BMO Harris Bank NA by September 27, 2017. If DTL fails to do so, BMO
may file a motion for replevin of these units.
BMO Harris Bank, NA is DIRECTED to provide a proposed form of final
order with interest computed up to and including the date of this Order.
BMO Harris Bank, NA may file a Bill of Costs and a motion for assessment
of attorneys’ fees computed up to and including the date of this Order.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to:
a. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff BMO Harris Bank, NA and
against Defendant DTL Transportation, Inc. on Counts IV–V of the
Complaint (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 52–57); and
b. Close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on September 14, 2017.
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?