TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. WOODARD

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; DENYING 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 11/17/2022. (kat)

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, as assignee
and subrogee of agent of FLORIDA BC
HOLDINGS, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND DANE WOODARD,
Defendant.
__________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-308 (MTT)

ORDER
Defendant Raymond Dane Woodard moves to dismiss Plaintiff Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company of America’s (“Travelers”) complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. Doc. 17. Additionally, Woodard moves for summary judgment. Doc. 18.
For the reasons that follow, Woodard’s motions (Docs. 17; 18) are DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND 1
Woodard was previously employed as a branch manager for Florida BC
Holdings, LLC d/b/a Synergy Equipment (“Synergy”), a construction rental company.
Docs. 18-1 ¶ 1; 19-2 ¶ 1. Synergy terminated Woodard’s employment in April 2020
based on allegations that Woodard misappropriated funds. Docs. 19-3 ¶ 23; 19-5 at

1 These facts are drawn primarily from Travelers’ Statement of Material Facts which Woodard failed to
contest, but only insofar as Travelers’ facts are adequately supported by specific citations to the record.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) and (3); M.D. Ga. Local Rule 56.

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 11

42:6-15. Synergy submitted a claim to its insurer, Travelers, to recover the funds
Woodard purportedly stole. Docs. 19-3 ¶ 28; 19-6. Travelers paid Synergy’s claim and
Synergy assigned Travelers its right to recover from Woodard. Docs. 19-3 ¶ 31; 19-4.
Travelers sent letters to Woodard demanding repayment. Docs. 19-3 ¶ 32; 19-10 at 24. Woodard has not repaid the allegedly stolen sums. Docs. 19-5 at 37:19-22; 19-7 at
69:14-23.
The alleged theft centers on Woodard’s authority to offer discounts and “no
charges” (i.e., free equipment rentals) to customers. As branch manager, Woodard was
authorized to provide customers with discounted or complimentary equipment rentals.
Docs. 19-3 ¶ 7; 19-5 at 18:2-5. But discounts and no charges below the “manager floor”
required approval, in the form of a “unique discount code,” from Synergy’s upper
management. Docs. 19-3 ¶¶ 8-10; 19-5 at 18:2-20:20.
Travelers contends that Woodard went beyond his managerial discretion when
he offered 31 customers no charges without obtaining approval by upper management.
Doc. 19-3 ¶ 13. Justin Winkler, Synergy’s director of operations and the employee who
uncovered Woodard’s alleged theft, testified that while branch managers could offer
customers a few free days at the end of a rental period, this discretion was limited to
specific circumstances. Doc. 19-5 at 19:3-20:23. For example, branch managers have
discretion to no charge customers if “the machine [is] broken down” or “it’s a rain day[.]”
Id. But no charging entire contracts required approval from upper management. Id.
Additionally, Synergy did not give branch managers the discretion to accept services or
personal payments in exchange for free equipment rentals. Id. at 24:5-21, 34:24-35:6,
35:20-36:17.

-2-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 11

Travelers offers evidence that Woodard was aware of these policies and that
Woodard circumvented these policies by bartering and accepting personal payments in
exchange for free equipment rentals. Id. at 18:2-21:9, 24:18-25, 35:20-36:17. For
example, Woodard “bypass[ed]” the approval system by opening rental contracts for the
full rental amount and then crediting customers for free rental days at the close of the
contract. Id. at 23:15-24:8.
Further, Woodard admits that he accepted cash and checks for personal use in
exchange for providing customers with free rentals. Doc. 19-7 at 35:15-18, 92:10-20.
In fact, Woodard plead guilty to criminal theft charges. Doc. 19-8. Travelers contends
that Woodard’s unauthorized no charges resulted in over $300,000 in lost revenue and
other damages. Docs. 18-1 ¶ 3; 19-2 ¶ 3.
Woodard argues that he had the authority to no charge customers, even though
it was “wrong” to accept personal payment in exchange for free rentals. Docs. 18-1 ¶ 4;
19-7 at 92:10-20. Specifically, he states that Jeff Karter, the Chief Operating Officer of
Synergy, said no charges were within the discretion of managers. Doc. 18-1 ¶ 11. And
that it was common practice in the industry to no charge customers. Doc. 19-7 at
68:23-69:2. Travelers maintains that while managers have some discretion to provide
customers with discounts and no charges, Woodard went beyond his managerial
discretion when he accepted services and personal payments in exchange for free
equipment rentals. Docs. 19-2 ¶ 11; 19-5 at 18:2-20:23, 24:18-25, 35:20-36:17.
II. STANDARD
A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

-3-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 11

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is not genuine unless, based on
the evidence presented, “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir.
2002) (quoting United States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428, 1437 (11th
Cir. 1991)); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The movant
may support its assertion that a fact is undisputed by “citing to particular parts of
materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of
the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(1)(A). “When the nonmoving party has the burden of proof at trial, the moving
party is not required to ‘support its motion with affidavits or other similar material
negating the opponent’s claim[]’ in order to discharge this ‘initial responsibility.’” Four
Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d at 1437-38 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986)). Rather, “the moving party simply may ‘show[ ]—that is, point[ ] out to
the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s
case.’” Id. at 1438 (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324) (alterations in original).
Alternatively, the movant may provide “affirmative evidence demonstrating that the
nonmoving party will be unable to prove its case at trial.” Id.
The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must rebut the movant’s
showing “by producing … relevant and admissible evidence beyond the pleadings.”
Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011)
(citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324). The nonmoving party does not satisfy its burden “if
the rebuttal evidence ‘is merely colorable or is not significantly probative’ of a disputed

-4-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 11

fact.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50). Further, where a party fails to
address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), “the court
may … consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)(2). However, “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the
drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge …
[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be
drawn in his favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Dismiss
An action based on diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the
parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “A plaintiff satisfies the amount in controversy requirement by
claiming a sufficient sum in good faith.” Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinnon Motors,
LLC, 329 F.3d 805, 807 (11th Cir.2003) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab
Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938)). Generally, “[i]t must appear to a legal certainty that the
claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.” St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 289. The party seeking to invoke federal diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 bears the burden of proving the claim meets the
threshold jurisdictional amount of $75,000 by a preponderance of the evidence.
Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 329 F.3d at 807. And “a district court need not suspend reality
or shelve common sense in determining whether the face of a complaint establishes the
jurisdictional amount.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1062 (11th Cir.
2010) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).

-5-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 11

Woodard contends that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
because Travelers has not satisfied the amount in controversy requirement. Doc. 17 at
5. 2 Although Travelers alleges $361,023.55 in damages, Woodard takes issue with
Travelers’ method for calculating damages. Id.; Doc. 1 ¶ 7.
Woodard allegedly rented dozens of pieces of equipment worth thousands of
dollars to 31 customers without charging them. Docs. 1 ¶ 7; 19-5 34:24-35:6. Travelers
supports its calculation of damages with a proof of loss statement and deposition
testimony from Winkler. Docs. 19-5 at 39:15-17; 19-6. The proof of loss statement
includes an itemized list of customers Woodard provided unauthorized no charges to
and the amount Synergy contends was lost in revenue as a result of the no charges.
Doc. 19-6 at 2-4. Further, Winkler, who was responsible for creating the proof of loss
statement, testified that based on his calculation Synergy lost over $300,000 as a result
of Woodard’s alleged theft. Doc. 19-5 at 31:6-33:19, 39:15-17. Travelers’ evidence is
more than enough to support its allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 3 Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and Woodard’s motion
to dismiss (Doc. 17) is DENIED.

2

Woodard does not dispute that the parties are citizens of different states.

Woodard argues that other evidence, such as a police report from Synergy claiming only $10,000 in
stolen funds, proves that Travelers’ claim is for less than $75,000. Doc. 17 at 5. But this evidence does
not demonstrate “to a legal certainty” that Travelers’ claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount. St.
Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 289. In fact, the police report clarifies that Synergy believed
Woodard misappropriated almost $342,000 in funds but at the time of the incident report Synergy could
only prove that he stole between $10,000 to $20,000. Doc. 18-3 at 2. Travelers has since gathered
information to support its allegation that Woodard misappropriated over $300,000. Doc. 19-6.
3

-6-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 11

B. Motion for Summary Judgment
1. Travelers has Presented Evidence that Woodard did not have the Authority to
Offer the Disputed No Charges
Woodard argues that he had the authority to offer the disputed no charges. Doc.
18-2 at 8-10, 12-14. Woodard states that Synergy “condoned, accepted, and ratified”
his conduct because he had managerial “discretion” to no charge customers. Id. at 1014. Similarly, Woodard contends that Travelers did not offer evidence to support its
claims for fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment because
Woodard “had legal authority as Branch manager to no charge customers.” Id. at 8-10.
Travelers has presented evidence supporting its contention that Woodard went
beyond his managerial discretion when he no charged customers without approval from
upper management. Doc. 19-5 at 23:15-24:8, 31:6-33:19, 34:24-35:6. And Woodard
admits that in exchange for providing free rentals, some customers gave him cash or
checks that he kept for his own personal benefit. Doc. 19-7 at 35:15-18, 92:10-20.
Therefore, at the very least, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Woodard was authorized to provide customers with the disputed no charges.
2. Travelers has Presented Evidence to Support its Claims
a. Conversion
“In order to establish a claim for conversion, the complaining party must show (1)
title to the property or the right of possession, (2) actual possession in the other party,
(3) demand for return of the property, and (4) refusal by the other party to return the
property.” Cap. Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Hummel, 313 Ga. App. 278, 280-81, 721
S.E.2d 108, 110 (2011) (citation omitted). Woodard argues that Travelers cannot prove

-7-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 11

he had actual possession of the money allegedly stolen and that he did not refuse the
demand for the return of the property but rather sought out legal counsel. Doc. 18-2 at
8. Travelers has offered evidence that Woodard personally accepted cash and checks
from customers in exchange for free equipment rentals, demonstrating that Woodard
had actual possession of the money allegedly stolen. Doc. 19-7 at 38:2-10, 92:10-20.
And Travelers provides evidence that it sent letters to Woodard demanding repayment
and Woodard has failed to make any payment to Synergy or Travelers. Docs. 19-10 at
2-4; 19-5 at 37:19-22; 19-7 at 69:14-23. Thus, Travelers has provided evidence to
support the elements of its conversion claim.
b. Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Unjust Enrichment
“[A] claim for breach of fiduciary duty requires proof of three elements: (1) the
existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) damage proximately
caused by the breach.” Bedsole v. Action Outdoor Advert. JV, LLC, 325 Ga. App. 194,
201, 750 S.E.2d 445, 452 (2013) (cleaned up). Unjust enrichment occurs when “(1) a
benefit has been conferred, (2) compensation has not been given for receipt of the
benefit, and (3) the failure to so compensate would be unjust.” Clark v. Aaron’s, Inc.,
914 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1309 (N.D. Ga. 2012) (citing Smith Serv. Oil Co. v. Parker, 250
Ga. App. 270, 271, 549 S.E.2d 485, 487 (2001)). Woodard argues that Travelers’
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims fail because Synergy did not
suffer damages as a result of Woodard’s actions. Doc. 18-2 at 9-10. But Travelers
provides evidence that Woodard’s unauthorized no charges resulted in over $300,000 in
damages. Docs. 19-5 at 24:5-17; 19-6 at 4. Even if Synergy received some benefit
from Woodard’s actions, such as increased customer loyalty—although Woodard did

-8-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 9 of 11

not present any evidence to support this assertion—at the very least, there is a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether Synergy lost revenue when Woodard provided
customers with unauthorized free rentals. Docs. 18-2 at 9; 19-5 at 24:5-17.
c. Money Had and Received
“In order to sustain an action for money had and received, a party must show, in
addition to showing that an entity has received money justly belonging to another, that it
made a demand for payment and was refused.” City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, 289 Ga.
323, 328, 710 S.E.2d 766, 770 (2011). Woodard argues that Travelers’ claim fails
because “it has not been proven that the theft was caused by the Defendant[.]”4 Doc.
18-2 at 10. But as discussed further below, Travelers offers evidence to support its
contention that Woodard was responsible for the alleged theft.
3. Travelers is not Barred from Recovery
First, Woodard argues that Travelers is barred from recovery because the
alleged theft could have resulted from the actions of third parties. Doc. 18-2 at 18-19.
For example, Woodard contends that “anyone with access to a computer at Synergy
would be able to apply no charges when closing a contract.” Id. at 19. But Travelers
has presented evidence that Woodard, not some unnamed third party, was responsible
for the alleged theft. Woodard admits that he took personal payments from customers
in exchange for offering no charges. Doc. 19-7 at 35:15-18, 92:10-20. And Woodard
stated that it was his responsibility as branch manager to review all the contract
invoices. Id. at 95:2-8. These facts could lead a jury to conclude that Woodard was

Woodard also argues that he did not refuse the demand for return of the property but sought out legal
counsel. Doc. 18-2 at 10. This argument fails for the reasons stated above.

4

-9-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 10 of 11

responsible for the alleged theft and Woodard has not offered any evidence to the
contrary.
Second, Woodard argues that Travelers is barred from recovery because
Synergy’s insurance policy with Travelers is ambiguous so “the loss should not have
been covered” and Woodard is not liable to Travelers for any damages incurred. Doc.
18-2 at 17. But Woodard has not offered any authority supporting his argument that
Travelers’ improper coverage should somehow absolve him from repaying the sums he
allegedly stole from Synergy. It is undisputed that Travelers paid Synergy’s insurance
claim and that Synergy assigned Travelers its right to recovery. Doc. 19-4 at 2. Thus,
Travelers has direct claims against Woodard.
Third, Woodard argues that Travelers is barred from recovery because Woodard
was required to get approval from upper management to give discounts and no
charges. Doc. 18-2 at 19. Thus, Woodard contends the actions of upper management
are intervening acts preventing Travelers from recovering. Id. While Woodard was
required to get approval from upper management to give discounts and no charges
beyond his managerial discretion, Travelers has presented evidence that Woodard
bypassed the official approval system. Doc. 19-5 at 18:2-19:7, 23:15-24:8. Therefore,
Travelers has evidence that upper management did not approve the disputed no
charges and the actions of upper management are not “intervening act[s]” that would
relieve Woodard from liability. Doc. 18-2 at 19.
IV. CONCLUSION
Travelers has presented sufficient evidence to support its good faith allegation
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Further, issues of fact remain

-10-

Case 5:21-cv-00308-MTT Document 21 Filed 11/17/22 Page 11 of 11

regarding whether Woodard was authorized to provide customers with the alleged no
charges. Accordingly, Woodard’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) and motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 18) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of November, 2022.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-11-