Government Employees Insurance Co. et al v. David Kalin, M.D. et al

Filing 231

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 230) is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. # 215) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to a default judgment against Defendants Nova Diagnostics and Patrick Le e Agdamag on Plaintiffs' Twenty- Eighth Cause of Action for violation of the FDUTPA, on Plaintiffs' Twenty-Ninth Cause of Action for common law fraud, and on Plaintiffs' Thirtieth Cause of Action for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs are a warded damages in the amount of $637,688.10 and prejudgment interest in the amount of $22,993.98. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment against Defendant Nova Diagnostics on Plaintiffs' Twenty-Fifth Cause of Action. The dec laratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 shall declare that Defendant Nova Diagnostics has no right to receive payment for any pending bills submitted to Plaintiffs. However, the Clerk is directed to delay entering final judgment against D efendants Nova Diagnostics and Agdamag in accordance with the above until Plaintiffs withdraw, terminate, or make a proper motion for default judgment on the remaining causes of action against Agdamag. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/18/2023. (DMD)

Case 8:21-cv-02556-VMC-JSS Document 231 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 12763

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE CO., GEICO
INDEMNITY CO., GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
and GEICO CASUALTY CO.,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 8:21-cv-2556-VMC-JSS

DAVID KALIN, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. # 230), recommending that Plaintiffs’
Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. # 215), seeking entry
of default judgment against Defendants Nova Diagnostics, Corp
and Patrick Lee Agdamag, be granted in part.
As of this date, no party has filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation, and the time for the parties to
file such objections has elapsed.
Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject

or

modify

the

magistrate
1

judge’s

report

and

Case 8:21-cv-02556-VMC-JSS Document 231 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 12764

recommendation.

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1);

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
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files a
timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the
magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo
review

with

respect

to

that

factual

issue.

Stokes

v.

Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). 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).
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

conclusion

of

the

Magistrate

Judge.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. # 215) is
granted in part. Specifically, default judgment is granted as
to Plaintiffs’ Twenty- Eighth Cause of Action for violation
2

Case 8:21-cv-02556-VMC-JSS Document 231 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 12765

of the FDUTPA, on Plaintiffs’ Twenty-Ninth Cause of Action
for common law fraud, and on Plaintiffs’ Thirtieth Cause of
Action for unjust enrichment against Nova Diagnostics and
Agdamag. Additionally, a declaratory judgment is granted in
favor

of

Plaintiffs

and

against

Nova

Diagnostics

on

Plaintiffs’ Twenty-Fifth Cause of Action, declaring that Nova
Diagnostics has no right to receive payment for any pending
bills submitted to Plaintiffs. However, because there are
other causes of action remaining against Agdamag, the Court
will delay entry of judgment until those claims are resolved.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 230) is ADOPTED.

(2)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Default Judgment (Doc. #
215) is GRANTED in part.

(3)

Plaintiffs are entitled to a default judgment against
Defendants Nova Diagnostics and Patrick Lee Agdamag on
Plaintiffs’ Twenty- Eighth Cause of Action for violation
of the FDUTPA, on Plaintiffs’ Twenty-Ninth Cause of
Action

for

common

Thirtieth

Cause

Plaintiffs

are

of

law

fraud,

Action

awarded

for

damages

3

and

on

Plaintiffs’

unjust

enrichment.

in

the

amount

of

Case 8:21-cv-02556-VMC-JSS Document 231 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 12766

$637,688.10 and prejudgment interest in the amount of
$22,993.98.
(4)

Plaintiffs
against

are

entitled

Defendant

Nova

to

a

declaratory

Diagnostics

on

judgment

Plaintiffs’

Twenty-Fifth Cause of Action. The declaratory judgment
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 shall declare that Defendant
Nova Diagnostics has no right to receive payment for any
pending bills submitted to Plaintiffs.
(5)

However, the Clerk is directed to delay entering final
judgment against Defendants Nova Diagnostics and Agdamag
in accordance with the above until Plaintiffs withdraw,
terminate, or make a proper motion for default judgment
on the remaining causes of action against Agdamag.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

18th day of January, 2023.

4