United States of America v. Hacienda Mesa LLC et al

Filing 57

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No. 51 ], except with respect to the Magistrate Judge' s recommendation concerning Defendant Hacienda Mesa, LLC, which is now in default. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 40 ]. Specifically, the Court:(1) GRANTS Plaintif fs motion for summary judgment as to Sergio R. Mesa's liability;(2) DISMISSES Sergio R. Mesa's counterclaims with prejudice; and(3) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Hacienda Mesa, LLC beca use the Clerk has entered default against Hacienda Mesa, LLC. Any judgment against Hacienda Mesa, LLC should be sought under Federal Rule of Procedure 55(b).Moreover, based on the record currently before it, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUD ICE Plaintiff's request for an order awarding it possession of the secured collateral and Plaintiff's request for an unspecified amount of attorney's fees. The Court at this time DEFERS a ruling as to damages and remedy as to all pa rties. Procedurally, Plaintiff should now file a proper motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 regarding the relief it seeks, as summary judgment has been entered against Sergio R. Mesa and defaults entered against Hacienda Mesa, LLC, CNH Capital America, LLC, and Deere & Company. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 3/6/2017. (hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
United States of America,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Hacienda Mesa, LLC; Sergio R. Mesa;
)
CNH Capital America, LLC; and
)
Deere & Company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-04863-RBH

ORDER

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed this claim and delivery action against the four abovecaptioned defendants: (1) Hacienda Mesa, LLC, (2) Sergio R. Mesa, (3) CNH Capital America, LLC,
and (4) Deere & Company. See Complaint [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff seeks judgment concerning two
promissory notes signed by Hacienda Mesa, LLC and Sergio R. Mesa in which they agreed to pay
Plaintiff (acting through the United States Department of Agriculture) the principal and interest on sums
of $70,000 and $52,500.1 See Prom. Notes [ECF Nos. 1-1 & 1-2].
Sergio R. Mesa, who is proceeding pro se, was the only defendant to enter an appearance and
respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 9. On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff obtained entries of
default against CNH Capital America, LLC and Deere & Company. See ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23 & 24.
On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against the other two defendants:
Hacienda Mesa, LLC and Sergio Mesa.2 See ECF No. 40. On January 25, 2017, United States

1

As the Magistrate Judge explains in more detail, Hacienda Mesa, LLC is the only party debtor listed on the
Security Agreement covering the collateral in question (twenty-one pieces of farm equipment and sixteen horses).
See R & R at 6, 14-15. Sergio R. Mesa is not a party to the Security Agreement. Id. at 6.

2

As the Magistrate Judge explains, CNH Capital America, LLC and Deere & Company are in default and
not the subject of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See R & R at 2-3.

Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”)3 recommending
that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.4 R & R [ECF
No. 51] at 1, 16. On January 3, 2017 (within the time for filing objections), Plaintiff filed a request
seeking an entry of default against Hacienda Mesa, LLC, and the Clerk entered the default on February
14, 2017. See ECF Nos. 53, 54, & 55. The matter is now before the Court for consideration of the R
& R and the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation concerning Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.5 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection,
3

The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) for the District of South Carolina.

4

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court: (1) grant Plaintiff’s request for summary
judgment against Sergio R. Mesa and dismiss Sergio R. Mesa’s counterclaims; and (2) based on the record currently
before the Court, deny without prejudice (a) Plaintiff’s request for summary judgment against Hacienda Mesa, LLC,
(b) Plaintiff’s request for an order awarding it possession of the secured collateral, and (c) Plaintiff’s request for an
unspecified amount of attorney’s fees. R & R at 16. The Magistrate Judge further recommends deferral of the
calculation of the amount of damages to be awarded. Id.

5

Objections were due by February 13, 2017. See ECF No. 51.

2

a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 51], except with respect
to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation concerning Defendant Hacienda Mesa, LLC, which is now
in default. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment [ECF No. 40]. Specifically, the Court:
(1)

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Sergio R. Mesa’s liability;

(2)

DISMISSES Sergio R. Mesa’s counterclaims with prejudice; and

(3)

DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Hacienda Mesa,
LLC because the Clerk has entered default against Hacienda Mesa, LLC. Any judgment
against Hacienda Mesa, LLC should be sought under Federal Rule of Procedure 55(b).6

Moreover, based on the record currently before it, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff’s request for an order awarding it possession of the secured collateral and Plaintiff’s request
for an unspecified amount of attorney’s fees.7 The Court at this time DEFERS a ruling as to damages
and remedy as to all parties. Procedurally, Plaintiff should now file a proper motion under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 55 regarding the relief it seeks, as summary judgment has been entered against
Sergio R. Mesa and defaults entered against Hacienda Mesa, LLC, CNH Capital America, LLC, and

6

Hacienda Mesa, LLC is the only party listed on the Security Agreement, see ECF No. 40-4, and Plaintiff
seeks an order allowing it to possess the goods and chattel listed in the Security Agreement. See ECF No. 40-1.

7

The Court directs Plaintiff’s attention to the Magistrate Judge’s thorough discussion of the remedies and
damages in the R & R. See R & R at 13-16.

3

Deere & Company.8
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
March 6, 2017

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

8

The Court again notes the Clerk has entered defaults against Hacienda Mesa, LLC, CNH Capital America,
LLC, and Deere & Company. Any judgment against these defendants may be sought under Federal Rule of
Procedure 55(b).

4