United States of America for the use and benefit of LGS Group, LLC v. Walbridge Aldinger Company et al
Filing
42
ORDER granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 12/27/2011. (CGC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for
the use and benefit of
LGS GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
*
*
*
CASE NO. 4:09-CV-72 (CDL)
vs.
*
WALBRIDGE ALDINGER COMPANY,
et al.,
*
*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
Presently pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to
Deem Admitted Defendants’ First Requests for Admissions, Motion
for Summary Judgment and Motion for Default Judgment in Favor of
Walbridge Aldinger Company (ECF No. 30).1
For the reasons set
forth below, the motions are granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
LGS filed a Complaint against Defendants for various claims
arising out of a construction contract for improvements to the
75th
Ranger
Regimental
Headquarters
See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.
1
at
Ft.
Benning,
Georgia.
Defendant Walbridge Aldinger
On September 23, 2011, the Court notified LGS Group, LLC (“LGS”) via
written order that it would consider these pending motions.
Order,
Sept. 23, 2011, ECF No. 39. The Court directed the Clerk to serve the
Order on LGS by mailing it to the best last known addresses for LGS.
Id. at 2.
The Clerk’s correspondence to LGS was returned as
undeliverable.
Letter to J. Lawson, ECF No. 40; Letter to Business
Filings, Incorporated, ECF No. 41.
LGS has not responded to
Defendants’ motions.
Company (“Walbridge”) was awarded the contract and entered a
subcontract with LGS for certain work on the project.
9.
Id. ¶¶ 7,
Defendants Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America
(“Travelers”) and Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) issued a
payment bond for the project.
Id.
¶ 8.
LGS alleged that
Walbridge breached the subcontract by failing to pay LGS in full
for its work, id. ¶¶ 32-37, and that Travelers and Federal are
liable on the payment bond, id. ¶¶ 39-50.
Walbridge filed a Counterclaim against LGS, alleging that
LGS had abandoned the project and that Walbridge had to pay
certain expenses due to LGS’s breach of the subcontract.
& Countercl. 8 ¶¶ 26-31, ECF No. 10.
Answer
LGS did not answer or
otherwise respond to the Counterclaim, and the Clerk entered a
default against LGS as to Walbridge’s Counterclaim against LGS.
Text Only Entry of Default as to LGS, Nov. 6, 2009.
challenged
the
entry
of
default.
LGS
also
LGS has not
never
filed
its
initial disclosures in accordance with the Court’s Scheduling
and Discovery Order.
Defendants
Admissions.
served
Defs.’
LGS
Mem.
with
in
their
Supp.
of
First
Mot.
to
Requests
Deem
for
Admitted
Defs.’ First Reqs. for Admis. Ex. C, Defs.’ First Reqs. for
Admis., ECF No. 30-5.
asked
to
agreement
In the Requests for Admission, LGS was
admit
that
it
with
Walbridge,
materially
id.
2
¶¶
breached
1-3,
and
its
that
subcontract
Walbridge
incurred damages in the amount of $71,158.77 as a result of the
breach, id. ¶ 4.
LGS was also asked to admit that, based on
that breach, it had waived any rights to payment by Defendants,
id. ¶¶ 5-7.
Finally, LGS was asked to admit that it had no
evidence to demonstrate a genuine fact dispute regarding its
claims against Defendants, id. ¶¶ 8-10.
LGS did not respond to
the Requests for Admission by the response deadline and has not
since responded to the First Requests for Admission.
DISCUSSION
I.
Motion to Deem Admitted Defendants’ Requests for Admission
LGS
Admission
never
as
responded
required
to
under
Defendants’
Federal
Rule
First
of
Requests
Civil
for
Procedure
36(a)(3) and never sought to withdraw or amend the admissions
under Rule 36(b).
Therefore, the Court finds that the matters
in Defendants First Requests for Admission are deemed admitted.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3) (“A matter is admitted unless,
within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request
is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or
objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its
attorney.”).
II.
Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants seek summary judgment as to LGS’s claims against
them.
Summary judgment may be granted only “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
3
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Civ. P.
56(a).
Fed. R.
Once the party moving for summary judgment
meets its burden to show that there is no genuine fact dispute,
the nonmoving party must produce evidence to show that there is
a genuine fact dispute.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
324 (1986).
Here, as discussed above, LGS is deemed to have admitted
that
it
materially
Walbridge,
that
LGS
breached
has
its
waived
subcontract
agreement
any
to
right
payment
with
by
Defendants and that it has no evidence to demonstrate a genuine
fact dispute regarding its claims against Defendants.
For these
reasons, the Court cannot find that any facts are in dispute
with regard to LGS’s claims against Defendants.
E.g., United
States v. 2204 Barbara Lane, 960 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1992)
(finding no fact dispute based on deemed admissions under Rule
36).
Based on the deemed admissions, Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment on LGS’s claims against them.
III. Motion for Default Judgment
Walbridge seeks a default judgment as to its counterclaim
against LGS.
As discussed above, Walbridge filed a Counterclaim
against LGS, alleging that LGS had abandoned the project and
that Walbridge had to pay certain expenses due to LGS’s breach
of the subcontract.
LGS did not answer or otherwise respond to
the Counterclaim, and the Clerk entered a default against LGS as
4
to Walbridge’s Counterclaim against LGS.
LGS has not challenged
the entry of default.
In its Counterclaim, Walbridge asserted that it incurred
damages in the amount of $71,158.77 as a result of LGS’s breach
of the subcontract.
Answer & Countercl. 9 ¶ 34, ECF No. 10.
In
addition, LGS is deemed to have admitted that Walbridge incurred
damages in the amount of $71,158.77 as a result of LGS’s breach
because Walbridge had to complete LGS’s contractual duties and
obligations
under
the
terms
of
the
subcontract
agreement.
Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Deem Admitted Defs.’ First Reqs.
for Admis. Ex. C, Defs.’ First Reqs. for Admis., ECF No. 30-5
¶ 4.
Accordingly,
the
Court
concludes
that
the
amount
of
Walbridge’s damages is $71,158.77, and the Court directs that
the Clerk of Court enter judgment for Walbridge and against LGS
in the amount of $71,158.77 on Defendant’s counterclaim.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to
Deem Admitted Defendants’ First Requests for Admissions, Motion
for Summary Judgment and Motion for Default Judgment in Favor of
Walbridge Aldinger Company (ECF No. 30).
is
directed
to
enter
judgment
in
Accordingly, the Clerk
favor
of
Defendants
on
Plaintiff’s claims and in favor of Walbridge and against LGS in
the amount of $71,158.77 on Defendant’s counterclaim.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of December, 2011.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?