NACM Tampa, Inc. et al v. Mensh et al
Filing
99
ORDER adopting 97 Report and Recommendations; granting 85 Motion for Default Judgment. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/23/2017. (DRW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
NACM TAMPA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:15-cv-1776-T-33TGW
ALEXANDER MENSH, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. # 97), entered on February 8, 2017,
recommending
that
Plaintiffs
NACM
Tampa,
Inc.
and
NACM
Services Corp.’s Motion for Default Judgment, seeking damages
and injunctive relief against Defendants Sunray Construction
Notices, Inc. and Reach Technology, LLC (Doc. # 85), be
granted
to
the
extent
set
forth
in
the
Report
and
Recommendation. No objections have been filed and the time
for doing so has passed. The Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation and grants the Motion to the extent stated
herein.
Discussion
NACM Tampa is a national credit management association
that created a notice-to-owner database for its constructionindustry members. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 15). A notice to owner is
used to create and preserve contractor liens. (Doc. # 86 at
¶
3).
NACM
Tampa’s
notice-to-owner
database
contains
information on construction projects in Florida and Georgia
where a notice to owner must be issued. (Doc. # 1 at ¶¶ 15,
16).
NACM Services used NACM Tampa’s notice-to-owner database
to conduct research, prepare notices to owners, and serve the
notices. (Id. at ¶ 16; Doc. # 86 at ¶ 4). NACM Services also
allows customers to conduct their own research and prepare
notices
to
owners
using
the
NACM
Tampa
notice-to-owner
database; NACM Services mails the completed notice to the
party to be served. (Id. at ¶ 16; Doc. # 86 at ¶ 4).
After discovering competitors were misappropriating the
information
on
the
notice-to-owner
database,
Plaintiffs
instituted this action on July 30, 2015, against Alexander
Mensh, Jacqueline Mensh, Ariela Owens, Sunray Construction
Notices,
Sunray
Construction
Solutions,
LLC,
Nationwide
Notice, Inc., and Reach. (Doc. # 1). The Complaint brings a
claim under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations
2
Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1965, (RICO) against A. Mensh, J.
Mensh, Owens, and Reach (Count I); a claim under the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, against all Defendants
(Count II); a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq., against A.
Mensh, J. Mensh, Owens, Sunray Construction Notices, Sunray
Construction Solutions, and Nationwide (Count III); a claim
for
misappropriation
of
trade
secrets
under
the
Florida
Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. § 688.001, et seq.,
against all Defendants (Count IV); a claim for tortious
interference with a contract against A. Mensh, J. Mensh,
Owens,
Sunray
Construction
Notices,
Sunray
Construction
Solutions, and Nationwide (Count V); a claim for breach of
contract against all Defendants (Count VI); and an additional
claim for breach of contract against Reach (Count VII).
All Defendants to this action were timely served. (Doc.
## 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14). Thereafter, Sunray Construction
Solutions and Owens reached a settlement with Plaintiffs and
were dismissed from the action. (Doc. # 55). About four months
later, A. Mensh, J. Mensh, and Nationwide also reached a
settlement
with
Plaintiffs
and
were
dismissed
from
the
action. (Doc. # 82). For their parts, Reach and Sunray
3
Construction Notices were defaulted after Plaintiffs applied
to the Clerk for an entry of default. (Doc. ## 23, 51).
Since Reach and Sunray Construction Notices were the
only
remaining
Defendants
and
both
had
been
defaulted,
Plaintiffs moved for entry of final default judgment against
Reach
and
Sunray
Construction
Notices.
(Doc.
#
85).
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment was referred to Judge
Wilson for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 88).
After
receiving
supplemental
briefing,
Judge
Wilson
entered his Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 97). The time
for filing objections has passed and no party has filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation. In addition, as
of this Order, Reach and Sunray Construction Notices have not
moved to set aside the defaults entered against them.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject
or
modify
Recommendation.
28
the
magistrate
U.S.C.
§
judge’s
636(b)(1);
Report
and
Williams
v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of
specific objections, there is no requirement that a district
judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993
F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept,
reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
4
recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district
judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence
of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d
603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.
Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th
Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo
review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge and
the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 97) is ADOPTED.
(2)
Plaintiffs NACM Tampa, Inc. and NACM Services Corp.’s
Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 85) is GRANTED as
specified below.
(3)
The Clerk is directed to enter final default judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs and against Sunray Construction
Notices, Inc. and Reach Technology, LLC as to the Florida
Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim (Count IV), the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act claim (Count II), and the breach of
contract claims (Counts VI and VII). Furthermore, the
5
Clerk is directed to enter final default judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs and against Sunray Construction
Notices, Inc. as to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Practices Act claim (Count III).
(4)
The judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Sunray
Construction Notices, Inc. shall be in the amount of
$446,880 and the judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
against Reach Technology, Inc. shall be in the amount of
$270,801.72, with both awards accruing post-judgment
interest at the federal statutory rate, for which sum
let execution issue.
(5)
The
judgment
shall
further
reflect
that
Sunray
Construction Notices, Inc. and Reach Technology, Inc.
are
permanently
enjoined
from
misappropriating
NACM
Tampa’s trade secrets through unauthorized access of
NACM Tampa’s notice-to-owner database.
(6)
The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
23rd day of February, 2017.
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?