Carrington Capital Management, LLC v. Moore

Filing 14

ORDER denying without prejudice 13 --motion for default judgment; motion for default judgment due 10/29/2015. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 10/15/2015. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CARRINGTON CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 8:15-cv-1246-T-23TBM

MICHAEL MEADE MOORE,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
Carrington Capital Management sues (Doc. 1) Michael Meade Moore for a
“grossly inaccurate” appraisal of real property. After the clerk entered (Doc. 10) a
default against Moore, Carrington moved (Doc. 13) for a default judgment. “[A]
defaulted defendant is deemed to admit the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of
fact” but not the amount of damages. Cotton v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d
1267, 1278 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); Pope v. United States,
323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944). Without explanation, the complaint and the motion conclude
“damage[s] in the amount of $128,467.33.”* (Doc. 1 ¶ 45) Neither the appraisal nor

*

The complaint explains (1) that “the value at the time of the Appraisal of the Real Property
was significantly less than $475,000.00,” the amount of the appraisal, (2) that the appraisal “was the
primary basis . . . to approve and provide funding for a loan . . . in the amount of approximately
$379,000.000,” and (3) that the “Real Property was sold for a loss in a short sale.” (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7,
9, 12) However, the complaint is unclear whether the “damage[s] in the amount of $128,467.33” is
(1) the difference between $475,000.00 and “the value at the time of the Appraisal of the Real
Property,” (2) the remaining “balance of the loan” after the “short sale” (Doc. 1 ¶ 13), or (3) another
number.

the “appraisal contract” (on which the claim for breach of contract is based)
appears on the docket. Further, a “defaulted defendant” is “not held . . . to admit
conclusions of law.” Cotton, 402 F.3d at 1278; see also Moore’s Federal Practice,
Vol. 17, § 111.71 (3d ed. 2014) (“[The] legal sufficiency of [a] claim is not admitted
by default.”). Without citing any legal support, the complaint and the motion
conclude that “the Defendant is liable for breach of contract [Count I], negligence
[Count II] and/or gross negligence [Count III], and fraud [Count IV].” (Doc. 13
at 4) Accordingly, Carrington’s motion (Doc. 13) for a default judgment is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Carrington may move again for a default judgment. Because the plaintiff must
establish that the complaint alleges a claim for relief, for each claim on which
Carrington requests a default judgment, the motion must identify the elements of the
claim and must cite the allegations of fact that establish each element of the claim.
Further, for each claim on which Carrington requests a default judgment, the motion
must present the correct measure of damages and must display a computation of
damages, supported by an affidavit or other verified paper containing admissible
evidence of damages for any element not established by admitted facts. If the motion
requests damages that are not readily ascertainable by a simple computation, the
motion must request a hearing. Finally, Carrington must submit with the motion
both the appraisal and the “appraisal contract.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 26) Failure to move on or
-2-

before OCTOBER 29, 2015, for a default judgment will result in dismissal without
further notice.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 15, 2015.

-3-